









































d THEEEEHE 
it | 1 } it} tt } ‘ itt rit ' rtely TVESPETVELHTS 
{ t ' 7 \ eee ' } i aad yi f 
SHAH 1K} NG RHEE HLETTEELT ELH 

rhteiti a ee ty! 

' WHR } i uf CHPEET LP EEEE 

TEC T # ; i 











Digitized by the Internet Archive 
In 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


httos://archive.org/details/episodeinstruggl00evan_0 





AN EPISODE IN THE STRUGGLE 
FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 














COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
CoLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
New York 





SALES AGENTS 
HUMPHREY MILFORD 
AMEN CorNER, E.C. 
LONDON 
EDWARD EVANS & SONS, Lrp. 


30 Norts SzEcHUEN RoAD 
SHANGHAI 


AN EPISODE IN THE STRUGGLE 
FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


THE SECTARIES OF NUREMBERG 
1524-1528 


BY 
AUSTIN PATTERSON ‘EVANS, Pu.D. 


ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 





SERN Ty ERTAS | 
a TTERIS AB —— 


N e w York 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
1924 


Copyright, 1924 
By CoLtumMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 





All rights reserved 
Printed from type. Published November, 1924 


Tae MEP Th OUN R Panoh eS 
NORWOOD:MASS°:°U°:S°:A 


To 


GEORGE LINCOLN BURR 








PREFACE 


THE subject of religious tolerance or intolerance 
may seem to some of antiquarian rather than of 
immediate and practical interest. In modern civili- 
zation men and women are no longer hanged, 
drowned, or burned because of the peculiarities of 
their religious belief or lack thereof. But in the 
longer view religious intolerance is but a phase of 
the world-old struggle between those who would im- 
pose by force their own or the community’s will 
and those who believe that man should be true to 
his own conscience. In all ages intolerant men have 
been in the majority. When they wish to compel the 
minority to worship at their shrines they invoke the 
gods which by them are held most dear — whether 
of church, of state, or of some social or economic 
system. 

Intolerance, some maintain, is but one aspect of 
the inevitable struggle for existence and the notion 
of tolerance is therefore a chimeric dream. ‘There 
can be no tolerance, they claim, but that of in- 
difference; men will and must fight for the things 
they truly cherish, employing any means which 
may, in their judgment, achieve the end they seek. 
Are we to accept this dictum of the determinist? 
I cannot so believe. If man is a wholly irrational 
being, yes; but if his actions may be at least in 
part controlled by reason there seems good hope 


vil 


Vill PREFACE 


that even in the struggle he may recognize and 
respect the differing viewpoints of his fellows. ‘This 
does not mean that one may have no convictions; 
it implies merely that, clinging to his own, he should 
be willing to permit others likewise to hold theirs. If 
tolerance be anything at all it is not an inborn 
response of the animal, it is a temper born of the 
rational in man. 

The present essay was written in 1915 but was 
then set aside in the hope that opportunity might 
be found to search the archives of Nuremberg and 
Bamberg to make absolutely certain that no signifi- 
cant material lay still buried in those repositories. 
Conditions during the past few years have made this 
impossible. The riches of these archives have, 
however, been laid bare through the researches of 
workers in allied fields—notably by Wappler, 
Nicoladoni, Kolde and Schornbaum. The work of 
these scholars, especially in the publication of docu- 
mentary materials, has been of such quality and 
fullness that there seems no valid reason for longer 
delaying the publication of this study. The theme 
of the study is the development among the Luther- 
ans of a theory of persecution, and more especially 
the influence which the presence of a group of 
sectaries in Nuremberg had in shaping a policy 
of repression of dissent in Lutheran lands, ‘be- 
tween the years 1524 and 1528. In addition some 
light is thrown upon the importance of the sectaries 
of the Reformation for the growth of religious toler- 
ance. In the belief that the most fruitful work 


PREFACE ix 


may be performed through the intensive cultiva- 
tion of a narrow field the study has been closely 
limited both in space and time. But it is not 
without significance for the story as a whole, 
since the situation in Nuremberg was fairly typi- 
cal of what was going on throughout much of 
Germany. 

The significance of the problem was called to 
my attention and my interest therein aroused in 
the Seminar of Professor George L. Burr at Cornell 
University. My debt to him is great, how great 
any who have come under his leadership, and who 
read this study, will easily recognize. It is a pleas- 
ant duty here to record my debt to a great and in- 
spiring guide, who gave himself unsparingly to his 
students, counting not the cost in the delay to his 
own work, that they might enjoy the fruits of his 
ripe scholarship and experience. 

Others have read parts of the manuscript and 
have offered helpful suggestions. For such assist- 
ance I am especially indebted to Professor C. H. 
Hull of Cornell, who read and criticized with great 
care nearly the whole of it, and to Dr. Gottlieb Betz 
of Columbia, who went over portions of it from the 
standpoint of the German philologist. For pains- 
taking and critical aid in the preparation of the 
manuscript and in the journey through the press 
grateful acknowledgment is due to my wife, Barbara 
Evans. AuSsTIN P. EvANs. 


Montrose, New York, 
22 April, 1924. 





CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 
PRUNE RODE CTION ee tol. 75. che Ua erg Meee yh 
II BEGINNINGS OF DISSENT IN NUREMBERG . 
III Tue CuasH with AuTHoriry....... 
PNP UUTHER AND) DISSENT eh) ce el oe. 
V Towarp A Pouicy oF REPRESSION... . 
VI Dissent Must BE CRUSHED ....... 
VII Dissent CANNOT BE CRUSHED ...... 
IST BUTOGRAPHICAT TIN OTEes cently) oolm Gale 
LEREEELCACA SIU Th Gd ge h SDRee ec A PR 
LES op.) 0 G0 Giusee 2a WAS Can EL JD MTe a oh Laan a 


xl 


Aa 
re: ' 

Ap * 

cae 


: D) ) > 
wey 
nah 


‘ 9 ts 
Me 


at 


ey ty ay 


i Bok oy ar A 
i ie Hie’ 
¥ ty Aw 
i i Gar 
i 


fi 


4 
Ly 
Ve 





An Episode in the Struggle 


for Religious Freedom 


CHAPTER [ 


DN ROOD. OG Tor ONS 


INTOLERANCE is not peculiar to any particular 
place or time. It is not inherent in any single in- 
stitution. It may be enshrined in a creed or in the 
denial of all creeds; it is found in religious or 
philosophic systems, or among men of science. It 
is a State of mind rather than the product of an 
institution or of asystem. ‘Tolerance, too, has never 
been entirely lacking. If it is today coming to be 
better understood and more highly prized than 
in some past ages, it is because the belief is growing 
that there may be more than one good way of 
looking at a question. This carries with it no impli- 


1 For these introductory pages there has been no attempt 
to examine carefully the source material. The books which have 
been found most helpful in obtaining this background for my 
work are the following: Acton, Lectures on Modern History; 
Beard, The Reformation of the 16th Century in its Relation 
to Modern Thought and Knowledge; Lecky, Rationalism in 
Europe; More, Utopia; Owen, Evenings with the Skeptics; 
Volker, Toleranz und Intoleranz im Zeitalter der Reformation; 
Wernle, Renaissance des Christentums; and by the same author, 
Renaissance und Reformation. Among magazine articles the 
one which proved especially helpful is Burr’s Anent the Middle 
Ages (Am. Hist. Rev., vol. XVIII, pp. 710-726). 


I 


2 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


cation that one way may not be better than another, 
nor does it mean that the individual may have no 
real convictions. But whether it is argued that 
truth is absolute or that it is relative, there can 
scarcely be debate over the question that truth 
for the individual, or for the generation, is only 
as much of truth — absolute or relative —as that 
individual or that generation can grasp. The truth 
of one generation may become the falsehood of the 
next. Thus conceived, truth for the individual is 
a relative and a growing thing. It is for him to 
form his own convictions while respecting and even 
welcoming the differing views of others. 
Intolerance always appeals to authority. Dur- 
ing the Middle Ages it was the authority of a 
Church which with solicitous care watched over 
and guided man throughout his earthly life. As 
the representative of God it opened or closed for 
him the gates of Paradise, according as he followed 
in the paths appointed him by a divinely ordained 
clergy. The problem of primary interest for men 
of that age was their souls’ salvation, and for 
this the Church was indispensable — extra eccle- 
stam nulla salus. If the Church is the interpreter of 
God’s truth to man and if there can be no salvation 
outside its portals, it follows that the clergy are in 
duty bound to protect the faithful under their care. 
They would be recreant to their trust should any 
serious breach of the discipline or dissent from the 
doctrine of the Church be allowed to pass unchal- 


INTRODUCTION 3 


lenged. The Christian may fall into error on ques- 
tions of faith and practice, but it is for the clergy to 
lead back the erring one into the paths of truth. If 
he refuses to be so led, if he stubbornly resists in- 
struction and insists upon the propagation of false 
teaching, not only does he damn his own soul, but 
he endangers the souls of those with whom he 
comes in contact. All the powers of earth and 
heaven were marshalled in defense of the unity of 
the faith and the safety of the faithful. Should the 
heretic remain obdurate he might expect the ex- 
treme penalty of death. The spirit of the time 
demanded suppression of dissent.” 

The duty and responsibility of the individual 
was relatively simple. All that was required of 
him was to accept unquestioningly the teaching of 
the Church. For one to oppose with his reason 
the judgment of the ages respecting the revealed 
will of God was deemed as preposterous then as 
now it seems absurd for one to question the work- 
ings of natural law or our notions of progress. For 
how could one hope, with his puny wit, to over- 
throw truth divinely established and authorita- 
tively interpreted? Obedience was the cardinal 


2 This point becomes clearer when one reads the protests 
against the laxity of the clergy during the 12th century in the 
suppression of heresy. As in the case of lynchings in this 
country the mob resorted to rough and ready justice to protect 
themselves against the heretics when the clergy were slow or 
refused to proceed against them. Cf. Lea, Inquisition in the 
Middle Ages, Vol. I, pp. 218 et sqq; and Vacandard, The In- 
quisition, pp. 32 et sqq. 


4 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


virtue; faith implicit the cardinal grace. Doubts, 
questionings, must be sternly repressed. For con- 
science the man of the Middle Ages had but little 
need. Questions of right and wrong were decided 
for him. It was for him to conform, to obey.’ 

A change in this point of view is observable as 
early as the thirteenth century. With the develop- 
ment of scholastic philosophy reason forged an ex- 
cellent tool for the defense of faith, but it was 
among those very scholastic philosophers that the 
problem of the rights of the individual conscience 
was agitated, and the necessity of obedience to the 
dictates of that conscience affirmed. 

The schoolmen were not arguing for a subjective 
norm, but it is not such a long step from their 
thought to the idea that the individual has a right 
and a duty to follow his conscience even though it 
may be in opposition to the dictates of external 
authority. Such a principle is capable of growth 
and during the succeeding generations, under the 
inspiration of an awakened and redirected intellect, 
it developed widely.* 

3 Obviously, such statements may be pushed too far. The 
seeming contrast between the attitude of the 12th and of the 
zoth century is after all not so great, except that the state has 
now usurped the position of the medieval Church, or shall one 
say their relative positions are reversed. Theoretically the state 
in its punitive measures now takes cognizance only of overt 
acts and does not enter the realm of thought or conscience, 


but in times of stress, such as war, the dividing line is very 
thinly drawn. 


* On the growth of the claims of the individual conscience 
see Acton, Lectures on Modern History, p. 31 et seq. 


INTRODUCTION 5 


It would be too long a story to trace in any de- 
tail the growth of this idea through the two succeed- 
ing centuries until it eventuated in a broader out- 
look and a wider tolerance in the later Renaissance 
period. ‘The restless minds of the later medieval 
thinkers worked out a theory of ‘ two-fold truth,” 
whereby reason was given free play on all questions 
not concerned definitely with theology.’ Inviting 
avenues of speculation were opened in which rein 
might be given to a reawakened curiosity. New 
discoveries widened the horizon of mankind and 
aroused a deeper interest in all things of this world; 
old theological cosmologies were shattered; and 
irresistibly thought began to lay hold on and ques- 
tion the very dogmas of the Church itself. Faith 
and reason were now supplanted by conscience and 
reason aS a means of arriving at truth. And truth 
thus realized may frequently find itself at variance 
with the truth, preserved in the custody of an 
authoritative institution. 

Forces were thus developing which would one 
day tax to the utmost the claims of authority, but 
as yet conscious revolt had not raised its head. 
Nicholas of Cusa might put forth his theory of a 
concord between all faiths, to be reached through 
discussion and without compulsion;*° Thomas More 
might sigh for a state where all faiths were to be 


5 Cf. Owen, Evenings with the Skeptics, Vol. II, pp. 3-52. 
6 In the dialogue De Pace seu Concordantia Fidei (1453). 
Cf. Burr, pp. 710-713. 


6 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


tolerated so long as each man held honest convic- 
tions and respected those of others; ’ Erasmus 
might pen satirical attacks against the foibles of 
the clergy and place in the hands of the layman 
a new edition of the New Testament, edited and 
interpreted with chatty, readable notes, in the hope 
that thus each individual might arrive at truth for 
himself.? But these men all remained within the 
Church. Nicholas of Cusa was an influential car- 
dinal; More suffered martyrdom for the orthodox 
faith; Erasmus never broke from the Church into 
which he was at birth baptized. Such men wrote 
and talked with great freedom. ‘The Church, se- 
cure in her position, could afford to be indulgent, 
and was, indeed, inclined to be so. There has 
probably never been a period of greater freedom 
within the Catholic communion. The works of 
More and Erasmus were widely read and, though 
there were angry murmurings from some narrow 
and over-zealous clerics, there seemed good reason 
to hope that the new ideas might modify existing 
forms, and that out of these years would come a 
broader view-point and a more perfect freedom for 
the individual to order his religious life in accord- 
ance with the dictates of his own reason and con- 
science. All hope of this was shattered when, on 
Allhallows eve, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 


7 Utopia, esp. Bk. IX (1516). 
8 See his edition of the New Testament in Greek and the 
Paraphrases. 


LN O. DUCE ION” 7 


theses to the church door at Wittenberg, and thus 
inaugurated a movement which was to split Ger- 
many, and all western Christendom as well, into 
two politico-religious parties. Until recent years it 
has been commonly held by Protestants that the 
Lutheran revolt ushered in religious liberty. In a 
sense that may be true, but not as it is ordinarily 
understood. The immediate effect was quite dif- 
ferent. It was a time of bitterness and strife when 
sharp definition was called for. Men spoke and 
acted in the heat of passion, and there was little 
time or opportunity for sober thought or reflection. 
For the exercise of a spirit of tolerance there was 
small chance or inclination. The things upon which 
men differed were emphasized and the spirit of 
freedom was crushed. For, from an authoritarian 
point of view, Luther and his followers did but sub- 
stitute the unimpeachable authority of a sacred 
book for the authority of the ecclesiastical hier- 
archy which they repudiated. 

This was not obvious at first. When Luther 
sounded the call to war upon the unquestioned 
abuses existing in the Church, abuses under which 
Germany had for long groaned, a responsive chord 
vibrated in the hearts of nearly all thoughtful, 
earnest Germans who were looking for some relief 
from papal exactions. His ninety-five theses were 


® This question has been carefully discussed by Volker, and 
with even broader view and deeper insight by Troeltsch in his 
Bedeutung des Protestantismus fiir die Entstehung der modernen 


Welt. 


8 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


immediately published in the tongue of the common 
man and swiftly scattered over Germany. Men 
of all classes welcomed them and praised the Wit- 
tenberg friar who dared voice so boldly what was 
in the heart of every true German. And when he 
was pushed step by step, from mere attack upon 
ecclesiastical abuses which were recognized by all, 
to a denial of the infallibility of pope and council, 
and finally in December of 1520 to a definite break 
with the Church, the majority still followed him. 
For that break was preceded by the publication of 
three great pamphlets, the platform of the Lutheran 
revolution.*” In these Luther, with bold strokes, 
painted the sins of the Roman Church and called 
upon the German nobility to sweep away ecclesi- 
astical abuses; he cut the foundation from under 
the hierarchical edifice reared with painstaking 
care during the past millennium; he rendered un- 
necessary the office of prelate and priest by his 
theories of the priesthood of all- believers and of 
justification by faith alone; and he laid, or seemed 
to lay, a foundation for freedom of conscience by 
his denial of external authority in matters of faith, 
and his insistence upon the competence of the in- 
dividual to read and understand God’s truth as 
revealed by the Holy Spirit in the Sacred Book. 
The papal bull of excommunication, followed by 


10 These were the well-known pamphlets— Address to the 
Nobility of the German Nation; Concerning Christian Liberty ; 
and On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church. 


INTRODUCTION 9 


the burning of that bull on a December morning 
of the year 1520, gave pause to some. Friar Martin 
was perhaps a little too aggressive in his methods. 
But when he stood before the Emperor and the 
estates of the realm gathered at the Diet of Worms, 
and professed himself taken captive in his con- 
science by the Word of God, insisting that he could 
not retract unless proved in error by texts from 
Scripture or by right reason, Germany rang with 
the praise of this doughty champion of the rights of 
conscience as bounded only by that Word of God. 
It seemed to men at the time, and indeed some 
have never been able to rid themselves of the no- 
tion, that Luther was here championing the rights 
of conscience for every individual. | 

Nothing could have been further from Luther’s 
thinking. Heresy to him was still the deadliest 
of sins. He had discovered, to his own satisfac- 
tion, that the papal system as it existed in the 
sixteenth century was built upon a growth of 
tradition for which he could find no authority in 
the Bible and upon a series of forged documents. 
All this must, then, be discarded; Christian belief 
and Christian practice must conform to that of the 
early centuries after Christ. Implicit trust must 
be placed in the Sacred Book and there must be 
no deviation from its precepts. 

Luther was sure that he had come to a true un- 
derstanding of this Book, and at first there was 
no doubt in his mind that every other honest man 


Io RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


would understand it just as he had. But disillu- 
sionment was soon to come. Before 1521 was 
over he found that there were those who dis- 
agreed with him and clung stubbornly to their own 
beliefs. By 1525, thoroughly convinced that men 
could not be left to interpret the Bible for them- 
selves, and recognizing that some power strong 
enough to enforce its will was indispensable if the 
gains which had been made were to be conserved, 
he turned to the only efficient power in the empire 
— to the territorial princes. In the summer of the 
following year, that union of Luther with the princes 
was given expression in the famous clause of the 
Recess of the Diet of Spires. Until the holding of 
a council, in the matters pertaining to the Edict 
of Worms, the ruler of each state was to “so live, 
rule and conduct himself as he hoped to answer to 
God and his imperial majesty.” ** Men had hoped 
to see in the movement inaugurated by Luther the 
effective assertion of the right of the individual con- 
science to be heard in matters of faith. To these 
was now given the choice between two institutions 
equally dominated by external authority — the one 
the authority of a visible Church, enforced by a 
powerful ecclesiastical hierarchy, the other the au- 
thority of a Book, enforced by the rulers of terri- 
torial states. | 

This development of the Evangelical movement 


11 Fourth article of the Recess. Pub. in Liinig, Das teutsche 
Reichs-Archiv, Vol. TI, p. 461. 


INTRODUCTION It 


from a propaganda to an institution, with definite 
form and determined shibboleths, carried with it 
the beginnings of a revolt from all constituted eccle- 
siastical authority. It seemed of little use to break 
from one authoritarian form of religion merely to 
adopt another, and thus many returned to the 
Catholic faith or found themselves in opposition 
to all organized religion. Among those who re- 
turned were such men as Conrad Mut, who had 
for so long been the head of a circle of humanists 
in central Germany; Crotus Rubeanus, who had 
enthusiastically supported Luther during the first 
years of his revolt; and Wilibald Pirkheimer, 
patrician and man of letters at Nuremberg. The 
radical opponents numbered a host of men who, 
during the next few years, were to be found, singly 
or in groups, in nearly every town or city in Ger- 
many — the “‘ Ultras of the Reformation.” 

It is not germane to this study to attempt to 
trace carefully the origin or the spread of this radi- 
cal movement. Much has already been done in 
this field, and while there is still more to do, any 
further contribution must come from a careful 
searching of the archives. Though the work which 
has already been done is in many cases of a very 
high quality, it has all too often been marred by a 
tendency toward partisan bias. Students have usu- 
ally been the champions of one or another of the 
established forms of religion, they have been blinded 
by the term “ Anabaptist”? and the opprobrium 


I2 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


which connected itself with that name, and they 
have failed frequently to see the broader aspects of 
this movement. Those who make a hero of Luther 
see in the “ Anabaptists ” only a contentious, sedi- 
tious body who did all in their power to rob his 
work of its effectiveness; those who hate him see 
in them the natural outcome of his propaganda and 
use them as an illustration of the evil results con- 
sequent upon the break with the Roman Church.” 

Attempts to analyze and classify the various 
shades of opinion existing among those who during 
these years severed themselves from the authorita- 
tive churches have, in my opinion, met with but 


12 From the time that Urbanus Rhegius published (Septem- 
ber 6, 1527) his warning against the “Anabaptists” to the 
present day, they have been the subject of adulation or vitu- 
peration. Some there are, however, who have attempted to 
write their history and evaluate their significance without bias. 
Most notable among early writers is Sebastian Franck, who 
included in his Geschichtsbibel (1531) a fair-minded account 
of them. Of recent books may be mentioned the little 
monograph by Henry S. Burrage, A History of the Anabaptists 
in Switzerland; the interpretative work of Karl Hagen, Deutsch- 
lands literarische und religidse Verhdltnisse im Reformations- 
zeitalter; and the careful studies on Sebastian Franck by A. 
Hegler, particularly his Geist und Schrift bei Sebastian Franck. 
Very excellent work has been done by Wappler in the archives 
of central Germany. He has, during the last few years, given 
to the world the fruits of his researches in a series of mono- 
graphs, the last and most ambitious of which is his 7, aufer- 
bewegung in Thiiringen von 1526-1584. Troeltsch has shown 
their significance in the whole development of religious thought, 
more especially in its social aspects, in his Sociallehren der 
christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen. In his Spiritual Reformers 
in the 16th and 17th Centuries and in his Studies in Mystical 
Religion Rufus M. Jones treats interestingly and sympathetically 
of these sectaries. 


INTRODUCTION 13 


slight success. On the extreme left there have ever 
existed men and women with all sorts of schemes 
and a variety of methods for bringing about imme- 
diate and salutary reforms. And so it was in the 
case of these sectaries. To return to apostolic sim- 
plicity in religious life and organization was their 
ideal. The majority of them asked only that they 
might be allowed to worship God in their own way. 
With the state and with organized religion they 
had no quarrel, were they but permitted to live and 
work quietly. But there were among them a cer- 
tain number who put forth fantastic ideas and 
voiced fanatical principles destructive alike —so 
thought authority at that time — of all ordered re- 
ligion and civic peace. These men were the ones 
who were most in evidence and from them their 
contemporaries, especially those responsible for 
law and order, received their impression of the 
whole movement. As a result all sectaries were to 
be abhorred and all apostacy was to be rooted out. 

The name “ Anabaptists,” by which they came 
to be known, is entirely fortuitous and has created 
the false impression that they possessed definite 
organization and fixed tenets. Such a conclusion, 
for the period covered by this study at least, is 
wholly unjustifiable. There were certain beliefs 
which practically all held in common, but the points 
on which they differed were far more numerous than 
those on which they were agreed. The name was 
given them by their foes. When it was thought to 


I4 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


be necessary to take active measures to suppress 
dissent, authority began to look about for means of 
repression. An instrument was found ready at 
hand. 

It was observed that one point upon which a 
large number were agreed was that infant baptism 
was useless. Baptism, they held, should mark the 
adult’s conscious acceptance of the Christian life 
and should be the sign of his union with the 
Christian brotherhood. In accordance with pre- 
vailing faith and custom they had all been baptized 
at birth. Adult baptism, therefore constituted re- 
baptism. Under Roman imperial law one who 
rebaptized was subject to severe penalties.‘* This 
old law proved a convenient weapon to employ 
against them. It was revived, and as “ Anabap- 
tists” they were summarily punished. They re- 
pudiated the name, insisting that infant baptism 
did not constitute true baptism and that they were 
not in reality rebaptizers..* Their argument was 
of no avail. The name was so conveniently elastic 
that it came to be applied to all those who stood 


18 Cod. Justin. Lib, I, Tit. VI,. Si quis rebaptizare quem- 
piam de mysteriis catholicae sectae fuerit detectus una cum eo, 
qui piaculare crimen commisit (si tamen criminis per aetatem 
capax sit, cui persuasum sit) ultimo supplicio percellatur. Law of 
Honorius and Theodosius, 413 A.D. Cf. Cod. Theodosianus, Lib. 
XXI, Tit. VI,, where the wording is somewhat different. 

14 See a little pamphlet, attributed to Langenmantel, entitled, 
“Ein Géttlich und grundtlich offenbarung von den warhafftigen 
widerteuffern: mit Gdéttlicher warheit angezaigt.” Cf. Jones, 
Studies in Mystical Religion, p. 369, note. 


INTRODUCTION 15 


“/ out against authoritative state religion. As “ Ana- 


\baptists ” they have been known to this day. 

It is difficult to come to know these humble folk. 
The world has given them but scant notice. Their 
writings are mostly lost; and one has to glean from 
chance admissions of their enemies, from their state- 
ments at trials, frequently wrung from them under 
torture, and from the few bits which remain from 
the pens of their friends, what manner of men they 
really were. For the most part, with the exception 
of some of their leaders, they were artisan folk, 
men and women who had become dissatisfied with 
the Church as it then existed and who had no the- 
ological system to uphold. Nor did their revolt 
confine itself wholly to religious beliefs; it carried 
with it a program of social reform as well. The 
movement arose first and became strongest in the 
Swiss cantons and in the cities of Upper Germany. 
And it was no accident that it began there. Trained 
in a love of freedom and in some measure of self- 
government, people had there become accustomed 
to face problems independently. And when, as a 
result of a combination of forces — the printing 
press, humanism, the Evangelical movement — the 
Bible was placed in their hands, they were prepared 
to read and interpret it in their own way. There 
they found justification neither for the claims of 
the old Church nor for the system that was just 
then being built up and becoming fixed in Evangeli- 
cal lands. To conserve the results attained by the 


16 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


revolt from the Church hierarchy the great leaders 
shrank from taking what seemed to these less re- 
sponsible groups the final step. Why, then, should 
they follow such leaders? Must they not rather 
follow the dictates of their own consciences? 
Luther had said that a man under the guidance of 
the Holy Spirit was competent to interpret Scrip- 
ture for himself and form his own judgment; the 
humanists had taught them to use their reason; 
Zwingli had said that all good men of all the ages, 
whether or not they had ever heard of Christ and 
the Bible, would be saved. The words of these men 
they accepted literally. They read and interpreted 
the Bible by the light of their own reason. If 
Zwingli was right, then God must speak directly 
to the human heart, there must be an inner Word 
supplementing the written Word. Indeed, it is this 
inner Word, this prompting of the Holy Spirit 
within, that makes it possible for one to understand 
the written Word. 

But if God speaks directly to the individual 
through this voice within him and through Holy 
Writ, what is the need of external authority, or 
of a visible church? The true church consists only 
of those who consciously accept the will of God as 
the guiding principle for their lives. Wherever two 
or three are gathered together in the name of 
Christ, there will He be and there is His church. 
The ritual of worship, the miraculous in the sacra- 
ments, all these are empty, useless forms. They 


INTRODUCTION 17 


are to be discarded except in the case of two or 
three of the sacraments, which are to be retained as 
symbols of union with Christ. Baptism is the seal 
placed upon the conscious entrance of the individ- 
ual into the brotherhood of Christ, the sign of the 
putting away of sin and the assumption of the life | 
of holiness. Infant baptism is not commanded in 
the Bible, nor is it in accord with the teachings 
therein found, for a child neither has sinned nor 
can it consciously choose the Christian life. Infant 
baptism is, therefore, worthless. Likewise the sac- 
rament of the Lord’s Supper is merely a symbol, 
useful as a memorial of the life and death of the 
Master, but of value only to the man who has 
experienced the inner renewing of the spirit. 
There is no miraculous property in the bread and 
wine. : 

Apostolic simplicity is the goal at which all 
Christians should aim. As brotherly love and 
a spirit of common helpfulness then reigned, so 
must it now reign among the followers of Christ. 
As Christ said, ‘‘ Whosoever would be great among 
you shall be your minister; and whosoever would 
be first among you, shall be servant of all,” so the 
Christian needs no magistrate, cannot himself be 
raised above his fellows. Men should be ruled by 
the precepts of the Bible, and one so ruled will 
do voluntarily much more than is required of him 
by any civil authority. This does not necessarily 
imply hostility to the civil power, it means rather 


18 RELIGIOUS (EREEDOM 


_ that those who put on the life of Christ are to live 
under a higher law. Let your speech be yea, yea, 
and nay, nay, said the Master; therefore one may 
not take oaths. Love shall reign among you; all 
war, then, must cease. One may not carry the 
sword. As Christ taught that his followers should 
keep themselves apart from the world, so the Chris- 
tian must now keep himself from the world — and 
in the extreme form this meant that there must be 
no commerce with “unbelievers” and no inter- 
matriage.’° 

It would not be a difficult task to find parallel 
statements which could be isolated from their con- 
text, both from orthodox medieval writers and from 
the leaders of the Evangelical revolt as well. Their 
objectionable character when thus put forth by un- 
authorized groups lay in the fact that all such prin- 
ciples are capable of great exaggeration by over- 
zealous and fanatical teachers, and in many cases 
there occurred serious excesses which condemned 
the whole radical movement in the eyes of all 
lovers of good order and established authority. It 
is the blessing and the curse of the philosophy of 
individualism that it throws men back upon them- 
selves and their own spiritual resources, and forces 
them to think and to choose for themselves. In 
the term individualism, as applied to the revolt of 
the individual from a religion of authority, this is 


15 These general principles are well summarized in Keller, 
Geschichte der Wiedertaufer, Chapter II. 


INTRODUCTION 19 


equally true.“° Thus one finds every shade of 
opinion among these sectaries. For some, who had 
not yet learned to see the essence of the spiritual 
life apart from the visual garb in which it was 
clothed, denial of the outward forms of religion was 
capable of slipping easily into a rejection of Chris- 
tianity itself. The refusal to accept office, the de- 
nial of oaths, the theory of the superfluousness of 
the civil authority for the Christian, could easily 
degenerate into a repudiation of the whole existing 
political system; the belief in the aloofness of the 
Christian community was capable of leading to 
grave Offenses against the social order. 

In the view of the exponents of authority in 
Church and State the more extreme radical posi- 
tion seemed predominant. They saw only the spec- 
tacular. It seemed much more simple —and more 
safe — to suppress than to seek to understand and 
meet dissent by reason. Any one who could not 
repeat the shibboleths of established faith became 
thereby anathema — an enemy of all law and or- 
der. Such an one must be put where he could not 
spread his poison throughout the whole body 
ecclesiastic and politic. 


16 Tt should be pointed out that many, perhaps the majority, 
of these sectaries were by no means thorough-going individ- 
ualists. In fact in their social theories they tended rather 
toward communism. But they stood for the right of the 
individual in questions of religious faith, and some there were 
who developed a consistent philosophy of individualism, e.g., 
Sebastian Franck. 


20 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


It is upon the shoulders of moderate men that 
great ideas and principles are frequently borne 
aloft to the light of day. Those who refuse to 
unite with one or the other group which may be 
striving for mastery, who persist in going their own 
way, are very apt to find themselves cordially hated 
and looked upon as traitors by both. But by 
quietly and persistently striving toward an ideal they 
spread their leaven throughout a community even 
while that community is focusing its eyes upon the 
more spectacular phenomena. It is in such light 
that these radicals of the period of the Reformation 
should be viewed if one is to arrive at a true under- 
standing of their significance. Though at times 
some of their number were guilty of grave excesses, 
though they were hounded by Catholic and Evan- 
gelical alike, until bitter persecution drove them 
into the orgy at Miinster, they none the less carried 
with them ideas pregnant with meaning for the 
future. Whether for good or ill they were the 
humble champions in the sixteenth century of the 
rights of the individual conscience. 


CHAPTER II 
BEGINNINGS OF DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 


In the heart of Germany on the Pegnitz, a small 
river tributary to the Main, lies the city of Nurem- 
berg. Time has not succeeded in divesting it of 
much of its medieval charm, though the exigencies 
of an active commercial life have forced its growth 
far beyond the confines of its ancient walls. It is 
still dominated by its two great Gothic churches, St. 
Lorenz and St. Sebald, situated on either side of 
the river; parts of the walls and the old moat re- 
main; while narrow, crooked streets, flanked by 
houses with high peaked roofs, the homes of wealthy 
burghers of a bygone day, aid in maintaining its 
medieval character. 

At present it is one of the commercial centers 
of southern Germany, and in the later Middle Ages, 
in the height of its prosperity, it played relatively 
an even more important part. At that time a free 
imperial town, it lay on the direct route of trade 
from the commercial towns of Italy to the cities 
of the Hanseatic League, and thus became an im- 
portant distributing center for the merchandise of 
the East. In manufacture, too, Nuremberg was 
important; the fame of its wares was wide- 
spread, the wealth of its citizens proverbial. The 

aI 


22 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


period of its greatest glory was the fifteenth and 
early sixteenth centuries, before the new water 
routes to the East robbed the Italian towns of their 
monopoly of eastern trade. This, too, was a period 
of significant intellectual and artistic activity. In 
art one needs but mention the names of Albrecht 
Durer, Adam Kraft, Veit Stoss, and Peter Vischer, 
all of whom did so much to beautify their city and 
to enhance its fame abroad; intellectually it was 
the center of an active humanistic group of which 
mention will be made later. 

Radical movements generally have their begin- 
nings in populous centers. There men of differing 
viewpoints meet and there the old, the traditional, 
is continually subjected to the dissolving influences 
of new currents of thought. There, too, in the busy 
hum of trade, criticism of the existing order tends 
to remain submerged and maintain itself until 
grown too strong to be easily eradicated. So it 
was in the towns that the individualistic movement 
of the Reformation arose and won most followers. 

To this rule Nuremberg formed no exception. 
Played upon by many cross-currents of life and 
of thought, visited by merchants and travellers 
from distant lands, a favorite meeting-place of im- 
perial diets bringing in their train men from scat- 
tered regions — it is quite understandable that with- 
in its walls the mystic and the dreamer found food 
for reflection. In the centuries just preceding the 
Reformation traces of dissent from the established 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 23 


Church were to be found within its confines.1 The 
Waldensians, the Friends of God, and finally the 
Hussites found followers among the citizens.? Hus, 
as we learn from a letter written by him to his 
friends at Prague, stopped there when on his 
fateful journey to the Council of Constance.’ 
On that occasion opportunity was granted him for 
public discussion of his doctrines and he thus 
succeeded in winning many friends among the 
people. This spirit of independence of ecclesiasti- 
cal control was further manifested in the initiative 
exercised by the Council in the appointment of 
pastors and the oversight over morals in churches 
and monasteries. It claimed for itself the function 
of instituting reforms when necessary, and for this 
reason its members were embroiled in continual 
disputes with their rightful ecclesiastical superior, 
the Bishop of Bamberg.* As in many another city 
of Germany a spirit of revolt against the Church 
was being fanned into life. 

The influence of humanistic culture in Nurem- 
berg has, however, more importance for this study 
than the presence of humble members of heretical 
sects. Humanism was carried across the Alps from 
Italy and found its way into the city about the 


1 Hagen, Deutschlands religidse und literarische Verhdltnisse, 
VOLILU DS 177, 

2 Haupt, Die religidsen Sekten in Franken vor der Reforma- 
tion. ‘See esp. pp. 18 et sqq., 27, 37 et seq. 

3 Published in part by Hagen, I, p. 178, note. Cf. also 
Haupt, p. 31. 

4 Hagen, I, pp. 178 et seq. 


24 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


middle of the fifteenth century. At the beginning 
of the following century it blossomed forth in great 
vigor under the leadership of Wilibald Pirkheimer.’ 
The connection between humanism, with its empha- 
sis upon the individual reason, and the sectaries 
of the Reformation period, with their insistence 
upon the duty of the individual to choose for him- 
self in matters of faith, was very close. An inter- 
esting illustration of this is to be found in Erasmus 
where he expressed the wish that the Bible might 
be read widely in the vernacular and that men and 
women might ponder its teachings as they went 
about their daily tasks.° This wish, shared by 
practically all German humanists, was destined soon 
to be fulfilled.” Though bitterly denied in after 
days by the humanists, the spiritual relationship 
between humanism and the tendencies toward dis- 
sent from religious authority must not be over- 
looked.® 

At the beginning of Luther’s revolt the sym- 


5 Hagen, I, pp. 179-1096. 

6 Erasmus, Introduction to the Paraphrase of Matthew, and 
the Preface to the New Testament (editions of 1516, 1519 and 
1522). Cf. Rembert, Die Wiedertaufer im Herzogtum Jiilich, 
pp. 24 et sqq. 

7 See Rembert, pp. 22-23, for details illustrating the influ- 
ence of Erasmus upon the sectaries. This influence is recognized 
by Kohler in his Reformation und Ketzerprozess, p. 43. 

8 It is interesting to note in this connection that Denck was 
banished from Nuremberg by the Council, in which sat promi- 
nent members of the humanistic circle, because he trusted to 
his own reason and would not be instructed by orthodox divines. 
And Pirkheimer became one of his bitterest foes! 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 25 


pathies of the Nuremberg circle of humanists were 
immediately and actively enlisted on the side of the 
Wittenberg friar. Christoph Scheurl — jurist and 
man of letters, second only to Pirkheimer in influ- 
ence — it was who introduced Luther to John Eck; 
Kaspar Niitzel translated the ninety-five theses into 
German, to be scattered far and wide over the 
country and read by all;° Wenceslaus Link accom- 
panied Luther to Augsburg when he journeyed 
thither to meet the cardinal, Cajetan, who had been 
sent to Germany to silence the bold professor. His 
Nuremberg friends were inclined, however, to mod- 
erate the zeal of Luther and strongly urged him 
to come to some understanding with the papal 
party, especially when the moderate Miltitz was 
sent in 1519 to arrange a compromise with him. 
The fact that their advice went unheeded did not 
then lessen their enthusiasm for his cause and when 
in 1520 the bull threatening him with excommuni- 
cation was promulgated the names of Lazarus 
Spengler and Wilibald Pirkheimer appeared among 
those of the friends who were to share his condem- 
nation. 

The course upon which Luther subsequently em- 
barked, however, cooled the ardor of some of his 
Nuremberg friends. This is notably true in the 
case of Scheurl and Pirkheimer, both of whom re- 


9 Christoph Scheurls Briefbuch, ed. Soden and Knaake, p. 
43. Cf. also Reicke, Geschichte der Reichsstadt Nurnberg, pp. 


748 et sqq. 


26 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


mained within the Church.*° But the majority 
went with him; and in this group were the men 
who were to have the deciding voice in the con- 
duct of religious affairs in the city during the next 
few crucial years. There was Lazarus Spengler, 
secretary to the Council and a leader in the defi- 
nite action taken by that body in 1524 and 1525 
to abolish Catholic worship. With him were 
Hieronymus Ebner and Kaspar Nutzel, the former 
president of the Council after 1524, both most in- 
fluential members of that body. Their influence 
was exerted wholly on the side of Evangelical re- 
form. Wenceslaus Link also remained a close per- 
sonal friend of Luther and a staunch supporter of 
his movement. Like Luther he was a member of 
the Augustinian Order. He had been Prior of the 
Convent at Wittenberg and in 1520 followed Stau- 
pitz as Vicar of the German Congregation. In 
1523 he was appointed by Frederick, Elector 
of Saxony, as Evangelical pastor at Altenburg, 
and two years later he returned again to Nurem- 
berg to accept the appointment to the pastorate of 
the New Spital, one of the large churches of the 
city. 

With the above names should be mentioned other 
leaders of revolt in Nuremberg. Andreas Osiander, 


10 R. Hagen in his Wilibald Pirkheimer, pp. 147 et seq., 
quotes an interesting letter of Pirkheimer’s written in 1528. In 
this he explained his position in the religious controversy, main- 
taining that his attitude toward reform had remained constant, 
but that Luther had changed. 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 27 


active, able, but narrow and domineering, was 
preacher at the church of St. Lorenz. His energy, 
fearlessness, directness and combativeness quickly 
won him a position of leadership. Others of the 
same group were Dominicus Schleupner, pastor at 
St. Sebald, Klemens Volkamer, and Christoph Kress, 
the latter two members of the Council and employed 
frequently on diplomatic missions. 

No city in Germany accepted the leadership of 
Luther more whole-heartedly or carried through 
Evangelical reform more rapidly and thoroughly. 
In their zeal the Nurembergers even surpassed their 
leader in fearless acceptance of the new conditions 
imposed by the break with Rome. In open de- 
fiance of the claims urged by the papal legates at 
the diets held at Nuremberg, 1522-24, the ministers 
persisted in their Evangelical teaching and in 
abolishing Catholic forms of worship. With their 
propaganda the Council was secretly in accord, 
though promptings of expediency moved it to com- 
ply, albeit rather tardily, with the terms of the im- 
perial mandate ordering the destruction of Luther’s 
writings. During the year 1524 and the spring of 
1525 the final steps in the break with Rome were 
pushed through despite every effort put forth by 
the Bishop of Bamberg to retain control over that 
portion of his diocese.** 


11 The documents for this may be found in Strobel, Mzis- 
cellaneen, Bk. III, pt. II. See also the letters of Planitz to the 
Elector of Saxony in his Berichte aus dem Reichsregiment in 


28 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


So great was the contention between the Catholic 
and Evangelical parties and so serious the need for 
some settlement whereby peace and uniformity of 
worship might be restored, that the Council or- 
dered a conference to be held in March of 1525, 
at which the opposing claims of both might be 
heard and decided. The result of such a meeting 
could scarcely be in doubt. On 14 March the 
Council declared the Evangelical party, championed 
by Osiander, entirely victorious. Evangelical pas- 
tors were appointed for the monasteries, the inmates 
of which were now free to leave if they chose, in- 
deed in some cases were forced to leave. The ad- 
ministration of ecclesiastical property and revenues 
was provided for by the Council. Upon the advice 
of the theologians that body assumed supreme con- 
trol over religious affairs. The Lutheran reforma- 
tion in Nuremberg was complete.” 

One further element which entered into the 
spiritual background of the radical movement 
should here be noted. This is the growing spirit 
of independence shown among the peasants, and 


Niirnberg, pp. 80 passim, for a fuller statement of the facts 
chronicled above. 

12 For these final steps see Roth, Die Einftihrung der Refor- 
mation in Nurnberg, esp. pp. 194-210. Cf., Janssen, Geschichte 
des deutschen Volkes, Vol. II, pp. 350-364. Charitas Pirk- 
heimer’s Denkwiirdigkeiten gives a melancholy picture of con- 
ditions in Nuremberg, especially with reference to the attacks 
of the Evangelical party upon monasteries and convents. See, 
too, articles by Pickel and Kolde in B. B. K. G., 1912 and 10913, 
where interesting details are brought to light. 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 29 


the activity of popular peasant preachers, in the 
region about Nuremberg.’** Diepold Peringer, the 
“peasant of Wohrd,”’ who claimed to be unable 
either to read or write and asserted that he was in- 
spired by the Holy Spirit, won a considerable fol- 
lowing in Wohrd and Thon, villages in the vicinity 
of Nuremberg, and even in the city itself. He 
seems to have possessed much native ability as a 
popular preacher. Spalatin, chaplain to Frederick 
the Wise, Elector of Saxony, heard him and was 
greatly impressed by the appeal which he made to 
imagination and conscience.'* The Council, on com- 
plaint of Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria and 
brother of Emperor Charles, ordered him to cease 
preaching and banished him from Nuremberg terri- 
tory. Traces of his influence remained, however; 
doubts and questionings raised by him could not 
be eradicated by the simple expedient of banishing 
their author. This religious disaffection was bound 
up with the political and social unrest among the 
peasantry of south-central Germany during the late 
fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, which ended 
with the outbreaks of 1524 and 1525. As a result 
two were put to death in the summer of 1524.*° 

It has not seemed necessary to enter in any de- 
tail upon a discussion of these various trends of 

13 Roth, op. cit., pp. 130 ef sqq.; Kolde, Hans Denck und 
die gottlosen Maler von Niirnberg, pp. 2 et sqq. 

14 Enders, 5, p. 153 and note 2, p. 154. 


15 Will, Beytrége zur Geschichte des Antibaptismus in 
Deutschland, pp. 137 et sqq. 


30 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


religious thought in Nuremberg. The aim has been 
simply to indicate something of the ferment that 
was everywhere apparent. All these elements 
exerted a distinct influence upon the separatist 
movement which was quietly taking shape, parallel 
to the changes in religion officially recognized in 
the city. For such a movement, directed as it was 
against all external authority in religion, the soil 
was well prepared.*® Men had now to choose not 
only between their old Catholic faith and the new 
ideas of Luther, but among those of independent 
thought there was the necessity of choice, when 
the new movement began to limit itself and harden 
into a system, between the freedom of humanism 
and the straight lines of the Evangelical faith. The 
disputes and the defiance of regularly constituted 
ecclesiastical authority attendant upon the meet- 
ings of the imperial diets in Nuremberg must have 
impressed greatly men who were thoughtful spec- 
tators. Those whose minds were imbued with a 
reverence for authority might break with the au- 
thority of the past, but would be quite satisfied to 
accept the substitute offered by the great leader of 
the German revolt. It would scarcely occur to 

16 See for instance Janssen II, p. 357: “ Welchem neuen 
Glauben, fragte [Charitas Pirkheimer], solle man denn folgen, 
da die Pradicanten einander widersprachen und ein jeder be- 
haupte, er allein habe Recht.” See also Capito to Zwingli, 6 
Feb., 1525: “ Apud imperii civitates (Norlingae et Nurnberge) 
quidam concionatores agunt inconsultius; quos puto causam 


dedisse, ut nunc pleraque ferveant studiis acerrimis.” C. R., 
DOV MTZ O2: 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 31 


them to exercise independent judgment on anything 
except minor points. But how would this affect 
the man whose thought was really emancipated? 
More than once questions must have arisen which 
were not easy of solution. Why all this endless 
debate and recrimination? Why this emphasis upon 
formalism and the incidents of religion? It was 
evident that some reformation was needed, but was 
this to come through a shifting of authority? The 
answer that was almost certain to suggest itself 
would be that external authority was not essential. 
When authorities quarrel among themselves, the 
thoughtful layman may be pardoned for reserving 
judgment, and it would not be at all surprising if 
he should reach a solution other than that of the 
majority. 

Among those men who were quietly observing 
the ferment and innovation in Nuremberg none is 
more interesting and worthy of consideration than 
Hans Denck, the rector of the school connected 
with the church of St. Sebald, one of the two most 
important churches in Nuremberg. He was among 
the most sweet-spirited, sane, and withal the most 
lovable of the men of his time, and none showed 
more independence in attacking and attempting to 
solve the problem of man’s relation to his God. 
Almost nothing is known of his early life. Born in 
the little town of Habach in Bavaria, probably 
about 1495, he matriculated at the University of 
Ingolstadt in 1517, receiving his baccalaureate de- 


32 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


gree two years later.” He is next heard of in Augs- 
burg, where he identified himself with the human- 
istic circle, under the patronage of Veit Bild and 
Adelmann of Adelmannsfelden.** The following 
year (1521) he seems to have spent as a school- 
master at Sterzing in Tyrol.*® In 1522 he turned 
up at Basel as a proof reader, first for the press of 
Cratander and later for Curio. At the same time 
he attended some lectures by CEcolampadius on the 
prophet Isaiah.” The young student commended 
himself highly to the humanist and reformer, and 
a warm friendship sprang up between the two 
men.** When in 1523 the Nurembergers were look- 
ing about for a new rector for the school at St. 
Sebald’s Denck was, on the recommendation of 
(Ecolampadius, chosen for the place. In the fall 
of that year he entered upon his new duties at 
Nuremberg. There he lived and worked quietly in 
friendly relationship with humanists and reformers. 

17 Such scraps of knowledge as can be found concerning 
Denck’s early life have been gathered by Keller. See especially 
his biography of Denck, Ein Apostel der Wiedertaufer. 

18 Adelmann was a friend of Pirkheimer’s, and like him was 
named in the bull condemning Luther. But he, like Pirkheimer, 
drew back from Luther’s bold revolt. 

19 Kolde, p. 21. See also Denck’s letters to Veit Bild pub- 
lished by Keller in his Johann Staupitz, pp. 401 et sqqg. The 
name of the town is there given as Stotzingen. (See Kolde, p. 
21, note 3.) 

20 Ccolampadius to Pirkheimer, 25, Apr., 1525. (Opera Pirk- 
heimeri, p. 306.) 

21 Herzog, Leben Ctkolampads, vol. II, App. nos. VI and 


VII, pp. 272 et seq. Denck to C£colampadius, Oct., 1527, in 
Ein Apostel der Wiedertdufer, pp. 257 et seq. 


j Hy, 
DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 33 


Pirkheimer, who later became a bitter foe to Denck, 
was instrumental in securing the young teacher and 
seems to have taken an especial interest in him.” 
Of his life during the first few months of his stay 
in Nuremberg, however, but little is known. One 
or two references to him are all that can be found. 
Most important of these is his own report of a dis- 
pute which he had with Osiander regarding the 
Eucharist.** This is of interest since it indicates 
that he was something more than a passive spec- 
tator of the events that were transpiring about him, 
and also that he was not afraid to think and to 
speak with independence. That he was deeply in- 
terested in the religious ferment is further attested 
by the rapid development of his ideas during the 
few months of his stay in Nuremberg.”* The situ- 
ation was one well calculated to provoke thought. 
' As indicated in the preceding pages two factions 
were there contending for mastery and both were 
appealing to the Bible as authority; each at the 
same time insisted that the other was wholly in 
error. One possible inference might easily be, 
therefore, that there must be some subjective norm 
by which the individual may test Scripture. This 

22 Keller, Staupitz, pp. 210 et seq. 

23 Denck to the Council of Augsburg in Keller, Ein Apostel 
der Wiedertdufer, p. 250. Also Denck to (C&£colampadius in 
Keller, ibid., p. 251. 

24 That Denck was not in the least suspected of radical views 
when he came to Nuremberg may be gathered from letters of 


CEcolampadius to Pirkheimer, in Herzog’s Leben (CEkolam- 
pads, app. VI and VII, pp. 272 et seq. 


34 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 
is precisely the conclusion arrived at by Denck dur- 
ing these months. 

It was not long before he was brought into con- 
tact with other elements which were to exert a 
powerful and permanent influence upon his thought, 
and through him upon the radical movement as a 
whole. Two streams of opposition to organized re- 
ligion met at Nuremberg during the summer and 
fall of 1524. From the north came influences domi- 
nated by the teaching and personality of two of 
the most revolutionary of all the leaders, Karlstadt 
and Munzer. These men were radical chiefly in 
the sense that they opposed the existing authority 
— both in religion and society. They demanded 
tolerance for themselves and their own opinions, 
but were far from believing in tolerance as a prin- 
ciple. Their attempt was to establish their own 
orthodoxy, and it is of some significance that 
Luther and his followers got their first introduction 
to the groups of opposition through contact with 
these men and their tenets. It is very probable 
that their attitude toward all dissent was embit- 
tered and their condemnation of the “ Anabaptists,” 
when later they met them, was conditioned by these 
experiences. From the south there came the more 
sane, less dogmatic influence of the leaders from 
the upper Rhineland. With men from both these 
groups Denck seems from the first to have been in 
friendly relations, though spiritually much more 
akin to those from the southland. 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 35 


In the summer of 1524, Hans Hut, an early dis- 
ciple of Miinzer, was at Nuremberg, plying his trade 
as a bookbinder.”® A native of the village of Hain, 
Hut became a vestryman at Bibra.*® Early won 
to the Evangelical faith, however, he enthusiasti- 
cally embraced his new creed and was tireless in 
propagating it while wandering from place to place 
as a bookpeddler. In this capacity he travelled 
through Saxon, Thuringian, Franconian and even 
Austrian lands.” During his wanderings, through in- 
fluences not now traceable, he came to have doubts 
regarding the efficacy of infant baptism and sought 
enlightenment on this question from the Wittenberg 
theologians. Their explanation failed to satisfy 
him. With characteristic impetuosity he thereupon 
jumped to the conclusion that, since they could not 
answer clearly and satisfactorily a question so funda- 
mental, their preaching was powerless to work 
regeneration of life.* Returning to Bibra he was 
soon forced to move thence because of his refusal 
to have his child baptized.” Shortly thereafter he 
became connected with Miinzer and made it his 


25 See his confession of 5 Oct., 1527, app. IV in Meyer, Die 
Anféinge des Wiedertéuferthums in Augsburg, p. 230. Meyer’s 
study and the documents appended thereto contain our most 
complete information concerning Hut. 

26 Meyer, pp. 215 et seg. Hain is in eastern Saxony, Bibra 
is a town in electoral Saxony northwest of Naumburg and but 
a short distance from Allstedt. 

27 Wappler, Tdauferbewegung in Thiiringen von 1526-1584, 
Dw2e. 

28 Meyer, p. 224 (hearing of 16 Sept., 1527). 

29 Ibid., p. 238. 


36 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


task to disseminate the latter’s writings.*® Denck 
he met during his stay in Nuremberg in the sum- 
mer of 1524,°' and it is possible that he also met 
at this time Wolfgang Vogel, pastor at Eltersdorf, 
with whom at a later time he became closely asso- 
ciated.** How long he remained in Nuremberg 
during this visit of 1524, it is impossible to ascer- 
tain, but that he was well known in the city and 
that he discussed religious questions at this time 
is evident from his statements at Augsburg during 
the fall of 1527. He then said that he had been 
known in Nuremberg jor the past ten years; he 
affirmed that he was well acquainted with Denck 
and had stopped at his house, and had also been at 
the homes of various other Nurembergers.** It was 
impossible, however, for him to remain for any 
length of time in one place; everywhere he quickly 
made himself obnoxious to the authorities. With 
tireless energy he travelled throughout central and 
southern Germany, preaching, baptizing, and dis- 
tributing tracts. His power as a popular preacher 
was astonishing. At Augsburg alone his converts 
numbered thousands.** He was there apprehended 
by the authorities in September, 1527, and died the 

30 Jbid., pp. 240 et sqq. 

54) Tbtd..° ppi iaeany 229: 

82 Tbid., p. 243. Eltersdorf was a little town situated in 
Nuremberg territory between Nuremberg and Erlangen. 

33 Tbid., pp. 229 et seq. 

84 Ibid. p. 220. Cf. also Wappler, Tduferbewegung in 


Thiiringen, p. 28. The documents which Wappler appends to his 
work bear eloquent testimony to Hut’s tireless activity. 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 37 


following winter — accidentally burned to death, 
it is believed, in an attempt to escape.*® 

Hut, in the first enthusiasm of his revolt, had 
accepted Munzer’s revolutionary teaching in regard 
to the state,** and had a share in his activity dur- 
ing the peasants’ revolt. Escaping the avenging 
sword of the princes, which ended Miinzer’s rest- 
less life, he boldly continued to preach inflamma- 
tory doctrines to the peasants. His later inter- 
course with Denck at Augsburg seems to have 
modified considerably his theories, but he never 
outgrew his chiliastic notions. By the exponents 
of law and order he was always looked upon as a 
dangerous fanatic; the fear of his influence did 
much to inspire the action taken by the Nurem- 
berg Council to stamp out the sectarian movement. 

Among the leaders of the “ Anabaptist ” move- 
ment, with the exception of Denck, there was no 
one who exerted a more direct influence upon the 
radical element in Nuremberg than did Hut. 
Others there were, however, who visited the city 
during the summer and fall of 1524. Hans Schlaf- 
fer, who was put to death at Schwatz in the valley 
of the Inn, either in 1527 or 1528, tells in his con- 
fession how he had met at Nuremberg Hans Denck 
and Ludwig Hatzer.*’ This meeting must have 


85 Aigentliche beschreibung der handlungen so sich mit den 
widerteufern zu Augsburg sugetragen und verlaufen hat. Pub. 
by Meyer in Z. K. G. 17, pp. 251-258, esp. pp. 255 et seq. 

86 Some notice of Miinzer appears on pp. 42-46. 

87 Van Braght, Martyrology, Eng. ed., Vol. I, p. 50; Ottius, 
Annales, p. 46. 


38 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


taken place in the summer of 1524. Hatzer had 
been at Zurich, leaving there early in the summer, 
bound for south Germany.** It is probable that 
he was in Nuremberg either in July or August.* 
Of Schlaffer’s activity there nothing is known. 
Hatzer, however, may well have exerted a consid- 
erable influence upon Denck. ‘Though Zwingli 
speaks approvingly of him in his letter to Frosch,*° 
he none the less belonged to the more radical party 
in Zurich, and Zwingli had already found it diffi- 
cult to keep him in hand.** Keller believes that 
Denck and Hatzer had become acquainted in Basel, 
where both were engaged in reading proof for a 
publishing house.*” If such is the case they must 
have there read together much of the literature 
of humanism and of revolt which was then coming 
from the Basel presses, and it is not difficult to 
imagine the subject matter of their discussion when 
they met again after two years. Their conversa- 
tion could scarcely have failed to turn upon the 
religious innovations just now being pushed through 
both at Nuremberg and at Zurich. And Hatzer 


88 Letter of Zwingli to Frosch, C. R., XCV, p. 200. 

39 Cf. Heberle, “Johann Denck und sein Biichlein von 
Gesetz.” In Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1851, pp. 128 
et seq. 

40 As noted above, C. R. XCV, p. 200. 

41 Article on Hatzer by Keim (revised by Hegler) in P. R. E. 
VII, p. 236, also Kolde, p. 23. 

42 In his Staupitz, p. 210. But see Roth, Augsburgs Re- 
formationsgeschichte, vol. I, p. 231, where he says that Denck 
and Hatzer had not met until they were together in Augsburg, 
1527. Roth seems clearly to be in error. 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 39 


must certainly have acquainted Denck with the 
ideas of those people at Ziirich who were opposing 
infant baptism, and who were urging upon Zwingli 
more radical action.” 

It must have been about this same time that 
Leonard Schiemer came to Nuremberg, where he 
learned the trade of tailor. Schiemer had been a 
Franciscan friar, but had become weary of con- 
ventual life and had left his monastery. From 
Nuremberg he went to Nickolsburg, which in 1526 
became a recognized haven for “ Anabaptists,” and 
later to Tyrol. He was there charged with ‘“ Ana- 
baptism ” and was put to death, together with a 
number of his followers, in 1528. Of his life in 
Nuremberg nothing significant is discoverable. 
From the few known facts, however, the indica- 
tions are that, even while in Nuremberg, he was 
a member of the radical group, and even something 
of a leader of that group.** 

The men who have thus far been mentioned were 
young men with their ideas still fluid. They were 
merely groping their way toward principles which 
would in the next few years make them leaders in 


43 See Will’s discussion of Hiatzer’s stay in Nuremberg in 
his Beytrdge zur Geschichte des Antibaptismus in Deutschland, 
pp. 27-30. Will is such an earnest opponent of all “ Anabap- 
tists” that it is necessary to accept his testimony with great 
reserve. He had access to good sources, however. 

44 Beck, Die Geschichtsbiicher der Wiedertaufer in CEster- 
reich-Ungarn, pp. 59 et sqq.; Martyrology, pp. 46 et sqq. (his 
name is here given as Schoener). Some six of his books are 
still extant. Cy. Keller, Staupitz, p. 227, note 1. 


40 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


the “ Anabaptist ” movement. Feeling keenly the 
need for a more thorough revolt from the old eccle- 
siastical system than was being achieved under the 
leadership of either Luther or Zwingli, they none 
the less had not yet arrived at settled convictions. 
In the autumn of 1524 there came to Nuremberg 
one whose doctrines had already been evolved into 
a system and become established by conflict. This 
man was Thomas Miinzer. Formerly Evangelical 
pastor at Zwickau, Munzer had found it wise, and 
indeed necessary, to change his place of abode be- 
cause of the prominent part he had played in the 
activities of the “ Zwickau prophets.” After wan- 
dering about for some time he finally, in the spring 
of 1523, secured appointment to the Evangelical 
pastorate at Allstedt. There he carried on a reli- 
gious propaganda tinctured with political and social 
tenets of a radical nature. This brought him into 
conflict with his prince, the Elector of Saxony. 
Luther, to whom appeal was made, bitterly at- 
tacked Miunzer, but urged that, unless guilty of 
actual sedition, he should not be prosecuted by the 
civil authorities. The prince, however, insisted 
upon the necessity of adopting measures adequate 
to suppress the propaganda, and as a result Miin- 
zer found it necessary to set forth once more upon 
his wanderings. He shook the dust of Allstedt 
from his feet on 7 August, 1524. Thence he jour- 
neyed to Mulhausen where a friend of his, Hein- 
rich Pfeiffer (called also Schwertfeger), had been 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG AI 


teaching radical doctrines since the spring of 1523. 
Here he hoped to be able to carry out his plans for 
setting up a politico-religious state. But the soil 
was not ready for his seed; he and Pfeiffer were 
both forced to leave Miilhausen, 27 September.* 
From Mulhausen Miinzer travelled south, stopping 
at Nuremberg in order to get printed a defense of 
his position directed against the Wittenberg re- 
formers, more especially against Luther. In this 
he was successful... The pamphlet appeared, prob- 
ably late in October, under the title, ‘‘ Hoch verur- 
sachte Schutzrede und antwwort, wider das Gaist- 
losse Sanfft lebende fleysch zu Wittenberg, welches 
mit verkarter weysse, durch den Diepstal der heili- 
gen schrift die erbermdliche Christenheit, also gatz 
jamerlichen besudelt hat.” 

The title of this work expresses well the writer’s 
point of attack. He can find no words too bitter 
to apply to Luther, whom he characterizes as revel- 
ling in sensuous indulgence and charges with 
having invoked the civil power to silence him. 
Munzer had received his first impulse to a new 
interpretation of Scripture from Luther, but he had 
also drunk deep of the German mysticism of the 
later Middle Ages.*® His was a more stern, more 
uncompromising belief than Luther’s. With the 
latter’s theory that the Christian will achieve eter- 


45 For this date I follow Wappler, Tduferbewegung in 
Thiiringen, p. 15. Enders in his Aus dem Kampf der Schwérmer 
gegen Luther, p. vii, gives the date as 20 Sept. 

46 Wappler, zbid., pp. 13 et seq. 


42 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


nal happiness through the free grace of Christ, 
Miunzer could not concur. For him such a doc- 
trine took the earnestness out of religion. Every 
Christian must carry his own cross, must work out 
his own salvation.** From this idea he derived 
the belief in the Christian community as a people 
apart, the small group of the chosen.** He attacked 
also the thesis toward which Luther was rapidly 
tending that the Bible is the sole, absolute, and 
final authority in matters of faith. The Word is 
not a closed book but a continuous revelation of 
God to His children.*® This belief regarding the 
immediacy of the relationship between God and 
the faithful carried with it an indifference to, even 
a prejudice against, accepted religious rites and 
forms of worship. All such “ idolatrous ” practices 
must be done away — by the prince if he will, by 
the people themselves if the prince refuse to act.*° 
With these extreme religious ideas he combined so- 
cial and political theories subversive of the estab- 
lished order. 

It was inevitable that concepts such as Miinzer 
held would bring him into conflict with constituted 
authority. Later they led him into the excesses of 
the peasants’ revolt.°* Miuinzer’s part in that up- 


47 Miller, Kirchengeschichte, II, pp. 310 et seq. 

48 Wappler, Thomas Miinzer in Zwickau und die “ Zwickauer 
Propheten,” p. 12; Miiller, II, pp. 310 et seq. 

49 Wappler, ibid., p. 12. 

50 Miiller, ibid., pp. 312 et seq. 

51 That the peasants were justified in the demands which 
were embodied in the “Twelve Articles” and in taking up arms 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 43 


rising is well known and it has tended to discredit 
him greatly in the estimation of his own and of 
later times. But in his fight with Luther the lat- 
ter was not always right nor was Munzer always 
wrong. Luther won by the aid of the civil power, 
but he paid dearly for the victory. He lost much 
of the popular support which had been his during 
the early years of his revolt; many were prepared 
now to follow a Miinzer rather than a Luther.” 
Among these were some of the citizens of Nurem- 
berg. In a letter to Christoph Meinhard of Eis- 
leben, written after his visit to that city in the fall 
of 1524, Miinzer says: ‘‘I could have played a 
pretty game with the people of Nuremberg had I 
cared to stir up sedition, an accusation brought 
against me by a lying world. Many people urged 
me to preach, but I replied that I was not there 
for that purpose, but rather to answer my enemies 
through the press.” °° 

It is not known how long Miinzer remained in 
Nuremberg before continuing his journey south- 
ward. But it could scarcely have been more than 
a few days.°* He did, however, leave two of his 
in defense of them, is scarcely open to dispute today; but that 
they were guilty of grave excesses is also true. Perhaps, how- 
ever, the chief count against them is their failure. In general 
the only justification of revolt, in any age, is success, and victory 
fled from their standards. 

52 Cf. Wappler, Tduferbewegung in Thiringen, p. 12. 

53 Quoted from Seidemann, Thomas Muinzer, pp. 48 et seq. 


54 Enders, Aus dem Kampf der Schwarmer gegen Luther, 
n'a € 


44 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


associates, Pfeiffer and Hans Romer, to look after 
the publication of the booklet.** It was not long 
before the city Council learned that Pfeiffer was 
pushing his propaganda in the hope of gaining fol- 
lowers. On the 26th of October an investigation 
was begun.*® It had been previously ascertained 
that he had with him in manuscript two pamphlets 
which he wished to have printed. It was suspected 
that these might carry inflammatory material. 
Copies were therefore secured by the authorities 
and were turned over to the preacher of St. Lorenz, 
Osiander, for his opinion in regard to the ortho- 
doxy of the views therein expressed. On the same 
day, 29 October, Pfeiffer was expelled from the 
city “because he was attempting by discussion to 
win followers.” Since “the Council and commu- 
nity are well supplied with good preachers” he 
may ‘spend his money elsewhere.” So read the 
official minutes of the Council.°’ 

In his discussion of the pamphlets Osiander at- 
tacked Pfeiffer on the ground that he appealed to 
the Mosaic Law, which, according to the Nurem- 
berg theologian, everyone knew had been super- 
seded by Christ’s law of love. Such teaching is 

°° Wappler, Tauferbewegung in Thiiringen, p. 38. Pfeiffer 
later suffered a fate similar to that of his leader. Romer lived 
to be a powerful factor in the introduction of the “ Anabaptist ” 
movement into Thuringia (see Wappler, esp. pp. 38-47). 

56 Kolde, p. 11, note 4. 

°T Pub. in Kolde, p. 12, note 1. The concluding phrase evi- 


dently refers to the money he was offering for the printing of 
his pamphlets. 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 45 


“not only at variance with Scripture but is con- 
trary to reason also.” The Mosaic Law provides 
that false prophets be killed, and this Pfeiffer would 
do, killing as such all those who disagree with him. 
In the second place, he pointed out that the author 
opposed those preachers who hold to the true Word 
of God in Scripture, calling them bandiers of words 
and blind guides. “So they [Pfeiffer and his kind | 
would make Jews of us; when they will and when 
it is of worth for their fanaticism [rumorn] they 
stand upon the Mosaic Law. But where Scripture 
is against them, they ridicule it and point us to their 
spirit [inner Word] and deny that this spirit is 
given through the ear of faith.” They introduce 
murder, sedition, the overturning of rightful author- 
ity, and out of the spiritual realm of Christ they 
make an earthly kingdom that is not ruled by God’s 
Word but by the sword and force.” °”* 


58 “ Wa aber die Schrift wider sie ist, dieselben verspotten 
und uns auf ihren gaist weisen, und verleugnen, das der gaist 
durch das gehér des glaubens geben werd.” (Kolde, p. 30.) 

59 Printed by Kolde as App. II, pp. 28-30. Also printed in 
part by Moller in his Osiander, pp. 64 et sqq. The latter dates 
the document 20 October. That date Kolde has shown to be 
impossible, since the Council did not commence its inquiry until 
26 October. Kolde does not attempt to date it. I have ven- 
tured 29 October as the date on which the pamphlets were 
handed to Osiander. In the Ratsverlasse for 29 October (Kolde 
12, note 1) occur these words, “die auffgehobenen pucher be- 
halten bis die besichtigt werden.” Osiander in his Gutachten 
says, “ Es sein mir sambstag nechst verschinen zway geschriebene 
buchlin . . . zugeschickt.” Since 29 October fell on a Saturday 
it is probable the pamphlets were sent him on that day. If 
this be true, the reply of Osiander should be dated sometime the 
following week. 


46 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


It has seemed worth while to summarize this 
document at some length because it shows so 
clearly the feeling of the dominant Evangelical 
leader in Nuremberg toward any tendency in the 
direction of dissent. In passing, it may be noted 
that he condemns Pfeiffer’s appeal to the Mosaic 
Law. It will not be long, however, until that same 
law will be invoked by the Lutherans against the 
sectaries. He is even more outspoken than Luther 
in denouncing these men as seditious. This is im- 
portant, for it was this fear of sedition which 
dominated the thought and influenced the action of 
the authorities in their dealings with the sectaries. 

The action taken against Pfeiffer was induced by 
two considerations of expediency.” The first of 
these was the growing tension born of the peasant 
unrest, of which mention has been made above, 
and which seemed to demand vigilance on the part 
of constituted authority; the second was the neces- 
sity, felt by the members of the Council, of em- 
ploying every possible means of keeping religious 
innovation within bounds. Technically, Nurem- 
berg had not yet gone over entirely to the Evangeli- 
cal faith; the Council felt constrained to maintain 
some form of loyalty to the Catholic Church. Com- 
plying with frequent complaints of Archduke Fer- 
dinand, brother and representative in Germany of 


60 Hans Romer was included in the same decree against 
Pfeiffer, but was not expelled from the city. (Kolde, p. 12, 
note 1, and Wappler, Tauferbewegung in Thiiringen, p. 309, 
note 3.) 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 47 


Charles V, a decree had been issued, in accordance 
with the Recess of the first Diet of Nuremberg, 
ordering that Luther’s writings be suppressed. The 
Council apparently made no attempt to enforce this 
decree, but the fact that it was allowed to remain 
a dead letter rendered all the more necessary the 
suppression of propaganda carried on by the extreme 
radicals.°* 

Meanwhile measures were taken to suppress 
Miinzer’s booklet. On 29 October, Dominicus 
Schleupner, preacher at St. Sebald, was asked by 
the Council to read the pamphlet and report on its 
contents.** The Council then sought to punish the 
author and the publisher who put out such a work 
uncensored. As Miinzer had left the city, they 
took up the case of the printer, Herrgott, at whose 
press the book was printed. It was found, however, 
that he was absent and that the work had been done 
by a foreign bookseller, Mellerstadt, with the aid 
of four of Herrgott’s workmen. These latter were 
accordingly locked up in the tower and the copies 
of the book, in so far as possible, were destroyed. 
There seemed to be little disposition to push the 
case, however. On 2 November the prisoners were 
released on the promise never again to print any- 
thing that had not been passed upon by the 
authorities.*° 


61 Soden, Christoph Scheurl, II, pp. 174 et seg., 201 et seq. 

62 Minutes of Council. Kolde, p. Io, note 1. 

63 For this discussion see Kolde, pp. 9 et seg. and the ex- 
cerpts from the minutes of the Council which he there publishes. 


48 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


It remains to mention one other leader of the 
radical movement who exerted a considerable in- 
fluence in Nuremberg at this time — Andreas 
Bodenstein of Karlstadt.** During the early years 
of the Lutheran revolt he had been a friend and 
co-worker with Luther and he counted many friends 
among the Lutheran leaders at Nuremberg, with 
whom he seems to have achieved a considerable 
degree of popularity. This friendship had been 
more firmly cemented by the dedication of his book- 
let, “Von Anbetung und Ehrerbietung der Zeichen 
des neuen Testaments,” to his “ beloved patron ” 
Albrecht Diirer.°° It was, then, probably not by 
mere chance that, after he had gone into revolt 
against Luther and his system, and had in Septem- 
ber, 1524, been expelled from the territories of the 
Saxon Elector, his book defending his position got 
itself into the hands of the Nuremberg printer, 
Hieronymus Hoétzel, by whom it was published, 
probably in November.®* Ho6tzel testified to hav- 
Will, in discussing the incident, states that he has been unable 
to find a copy of the book. But it is enough for our good 
Lutheran “dass die kluge Vorsicht der niirnbergischen Obrigkeit 
sie untergedriicket und hiedurch einen Theil der verruchten 
munzerischen Absichten gliicklich vereitelt hat.” (P. 46.) Kirch- 
hoff has written a little monograph on Herrgott, who appears 
to have been himself a follower of Miinzer, entitled Johann 
Herrgoit, Buchfiihrer zu Niirnberg, und sein tragisches Ende, 
1527. P 
6¢ Andreas Bodenstein was born at Karlstadt. I follow here 
the general custom of calling him simply Karlstadt, 

65 Kolde, p. 16. 

66 The title of the book is Von dem widerchristlichen Miss- 


brauch des Herrn Brot und Kelch. (Barge, Karlstadt, II, pp. 
240 et Seq. 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 49 


ing received the manuscript from a “ foreign travel- 
ler’ [frembden landfarer]. It is possible that this 
“foreign traveller” was one Martin Reinhart, a 
former Lutheran preacher at Jena. The relations 
between Karlstadt and Reinhart had previously 
been close,** and when the former had gone into 
opposition to Luther he carried the latter with him. 
In order to get his books printed Karlstadt set up 
a press at Jena and secured Reinhart’s assistance 
in carrying on this work. The disciple shared 
the fate of his master at the time of Karlstadt’s 
expulsion from Saxon territories.°* He seems to 
have come immediately to Nuremberg with his 
family, hoping apparently that earlier pleasant re- 
lations with influential citizens would gain him a 
friendly welcome.*® His connection with the radi- 
cal propaganda in Saxony was, however, well known 


67 Z. K. G. 1886, pp. 283 et sqq. Article by Kolde on Karl- 
stadt in Ddanemark. 

68 He had printed a report of the debate between Luther 
and Karlstadt (Jena, 21 August). It is probable that this called 
the attention of the authorities sharply to him. See Luther to 
Amsdorf, 27 October, 1524 (Enders, 5, p. 39): Orlamundae acta 
nequiter edidit Martinus Reinhardus Jhenensis praedicator in 
meam ignominiam et Carlstadii gloriam. Also his letter to 
Spalatin, 3 Oct. (Enders, 5, p. 32). The report is to be found 
Inn West 5.4). 334. 

69 In March, 1524, Reinhart had published a little leafiet 
containing articles presented by the Bohemian Brethren at the 
Council of Basel in 1430. This he had dedicated to Pirkheimer, 
Anton Tucher, Hieronymus Ebner, and the whole Nuremberg 
Council. This fact was taken by Keller as proof of his theory 
that direct connection may be traced between the “ Anabap- 
tist” movement and the “Old Evangelicals.” (See his Staupitz, 
pp. 202 et seg.) There can be no question that the ‘“ Ana- 
baptists”” had much in common with the earlier heretical bodies, 
but the sources which make definite that connection must 


50 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


in Nuremberg. Immediate measures were there- 
fore adopted to rid the city of his presence. On 
17 December the following decree was issued: 
“Doctor Martin Reinhart, former preacher in Jena, 
who was connected with the fanatical movement at 
Allstedt, and who for this reason was expelled from 
Saxony ... is here without permission from the 
Council. He shall, therefore, leave this city before 
tomorrow morning, together with his wife and chil- 
dren, and spend his money outside the jurisdiction 
of this Council.” “° If he failed to comply he would 
be dealt with accordingly, in what manner the 
reader is left to surmise. But that Reinhart had 
no doubt of the adequacy of the methods that would 
be employed is attested by the fact that nothing 
further is heard of his work in Nuremberg. 

But to return after this slight digression to Karl- 
stadt. On the day preceding the expulsion of Rein- 
hart the Council ordered that all copies of Karl- 
stadt’s book should be secured, and that it should 
be ascertained by whom it had been printed. When 
be read with much reserve. (Cf. Wappler, Tauferbewegung in 
Thiiringen, p. 2, and also Will, pp. 49 et seq.) 

The title of the pamphlet is of some interest: “ Antzeygung 
wie die gefallene Christenheit widerbracht miig werden in jren 
ersten standt in welchem sie von Christo und seynen Aposteln 
erstlich gepflantzt und auffgebawet ist. Vor hundert jaren 
beschrieben und yetzt allererst gefunden und durch den Druck 
an tag geben.” 1524. 

70 Kolde, p. 18, note 1. The decree here quoted connects 
Reinhart with the propaganda at Allstedt. This is very evidently 


an error on the part of the Nurembergers. So far as can be 
learned he had no direct connection with Miinzer’s work. 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 51 


it was found that Hotzel had printed the pamphlet, 
he was at once arrested. It was further decreed 
that all books of Karlstadt and Miinzer should be 
confiscated and Hotzel was ordered to tell whence 
he secured the manuscript. Booksellers were for- 
bidden to offer for sale any books except such as 
should have been favorably passed upon by the 
Council.” 

Such were the measures employed by the authori- 
ties in defense of their faith. Agitators were quickly 
expelled; by a strict censorship of the press a de- 
termined effort was made to prevent their doctrines 
from gaining a foot-hold among the people. Like 
measures were taken by Margrave Casimir of 
Brandenburg-Ansbach, whose territories nearly sur- 
rounded those of Nuremberg. On 5 December, 
1524, he issued a mandate forbidding the publication 
of any works by either Karlstadt or Miinzer, or 
those of any other sect.” In January of the follow- 
ing year he followed this by a decree of banishment 
against Karlstadt, who had been hovering about 
Rothenburg on the Tauber."* Early in March a 
little pamphlet got itself into print at Rothenburg 
in which the writer complains bitterly of the ac- 
tion taken by the authorities, deploring especially 
the attitude of the preachers at Nuremberg. These, 
he believes, would themselves carry the wood to 


71 Kolde, p. 17, note tr. 

72 Barge, II, p. 243. 

73 Enders, Aus dem Kampf der Schwarmer gegen Luther, pp. 
12 éb seq. 


52 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


burn any one who erred.’* Between the preachers 
and the civil authorities life was made difficult for 
the free lances of religious thought in and about 
Nuremberg. 

It was impossible, however, to crush out the 
radical propaganda. The seed sown by these wan- 
derers — some merely groping toward a more in- 
dividualistic point of view, some already in open 
revolt — had fallen on rich soil. It sprouted, grew, 
and during the next few years was to produce a 
harvest. Gradually there was formed in Nurem- 
berg a group who discussed religious questions to- 
gether and who were unable to find themselves in 
complete agreement with the prevailing doctrines.” 
How large this group was we have no means of 
knowing, nor is it safe to assume that the men com- 
prising it recognized any particular bond of unity.”® 
But that there was a considerable number who 
found themselves at variance with the orthodox 


74 Tbid., p. 51. The pamphlet in question was written by 
Valentine Ickelschamer and is entitled, ‘“ Clag etlicher briider: 
an alle christen von der grossen ungerechtickeyt und Tirannei, 
so Endressen Bodensteyn von Carolstat yetzo von Luther zu 
Wittenbergk geschicht.” (Pub. by Enders, op. cit.) 

75 See, for example, Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und 
der “drei gottlosen Maler” von WNiirnberg, ed. by Kolde, 
PP. 236, 244, 246. 

76 Keller (in Staupitz, ch. 8) discovers a definite “ brother- 
hood,” adducing in proof the fact that Denck at his trial in 
January, 1525, spoke of the gefangene Bruder and also circulated 
his written statement at the trial among the people, or rather 
among a certain group. But Keller, in my judgment, goes too 
far. Such a theory rests on the belief that this group of radi- 
cals was a direct lineal descendant from the “ Old Evangelicals.” 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 53 


Evangelical views there can be little doubt. Some 
of them had met with Reinhart,’ were reading and 
distributing Karlstadt’s and Miinzer’s works,’* and 
were carrying on propaganda both in the city and 
throughout the countryside."” There were among 
them those in whom revolt confined itself to reli- 
gious questions alone, others mingled political and 
social ideas of a radical nature as well.*° Though 
there was no one set of principles to which all sub- 
scribed, there seems to have been a distinct com- 
munity of interest. And among them the one who 
took the leading place and who is of most interest 
to us is Hans Denck. 

It is Denck’s figure and the part that he played 
as one of the pioneers and leaders in the sectarian 
movement as a whole, that lends peculiar interest 
to the study of just this period in the development 
of the radical revolt in Nuremberg. Whence he 
drew his peculiar ideas it is difficult to determine. 
His biographer finds many traces of German mysti- 
cism — of the works of Tauler, of the Theologia 
Germanica and the Imitation of Christ. These 
works of earlier mystics were just at this time be- 
ing put out in printed editions,” and it is probable 


7™7 Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “ drei gottlosen 
Maler” von Niirnberg, p. 246 and note 2. 

78 Ibid., p. 246. 

TTD) 237. 

ov 10id. D0. 245, 250. 

81 Keller, Ein Apostel der Widertaufer, pp. 30-32. 

82 The influence of the printing press, making available books 
in relatively cheap editions and in greatly increased numbers, 
can hardly be overstated. 


54 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


that Denck had become familiar with them as a 
proof reader at Basel.** But he was not alone in 
his debt to the earlier German mystics. Luther 
testified in warmest terms to the worth of the 
Theologia Germanica and accords it a high place 
in the moulding of his thought.** Munzer too had 
drawn much inspiration from the mystics.*° The 
attempt, in fact, to conceive religion as a personal 
and immediate relationship with God is common to 
all ages. If there be any distinguishing feature in 
Denck’s thought it lies perhaps in the fact that he 
was able to see a little deeper than his fellows into 
the essential meaning of this relationship. 

Earlier in the chapter it was pointed out that 
there is no indication that Denck had displayed 
radical tendencies before coming to Nuremberg. 
Pirkheimer, who had been instrumental in securing 
him as a teacher in 1523, complained bitterly to 
(Ecolampadius that his pupil had proved to be a 
wolf in sheep’s clothing, and blamed his old friend 
for ever having recommended such a man to them. 
This called forth from Ccolampadius a strong dis- 
claimer of any knowledge of radical tendencies in 
Denck. He warmly denied also the veiled hint that 
Denck had imbibed some of his heretical notions 
from him. “If Denck,” he wrote, “has drunk 


83 Hegler, Franck’s Paraphrase of the Theologia Germanica, 
pp. 4. eb seq. 

84 See the Vorrede to his edition of the Theologia Germanica, 
DLA AS a Walp BB Mic ic dy fe 

85 Seidemann, p. 55. 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 55 


poison it is not from me. I don’t know that I ever 
discussed religious questions with him to any ex- 
tent. He heard some lectures on Isaiah, but the 
reader may judge for himself what their nature 
was. .. . [Concerning the Eucharist] I have 
never spoken with him.” *° 

It must have been in Nuremberg that he first 
openly developed radical tendencies. His connec- 
tion with the leaders of opposition who from time 
to time visited the city has already been indicated. 
It seems clear that these outside impulses came 
much more largely from the north than from the 
south. With the social teachings of the northern 
radicals he had little in common, but with their 
religious views he was in much closer accord. Kolde 
has attributed much significance to .a sermon 
preached in January of 1524 by Simon Haferitz, 
a pastor at Allstedt. This sermon later appeared in 
pamphlet form. It cannot be proved that Denck 
ever read it, but the ideas which he voiced at his 
trial about one year later show a striking similarity 
to the ideas there put forth, and it is quite possible 
that he had, in some way, become familiar with its 
contents. Hiaferitz attacks boldly the belief in the 
letter of Scripture. A man must experience the 


86 (colampadius to Pirkheimer, 25 Apr., 1525. (Op. Purk., 
p. 306.) See also a letter of Gcolampadius to Pirkheimer, Apr., 
1525 (written before the above and before Pirkheimer’s accus- 
ing letter had reached him) in which he expresses great sur- 
prise and concern regarding the report that had come to him 
of Denck’s heresy. Pub. in Herzog, Leben Ckolampads. II, 
De.374, 


56 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


power of God working in and through him, must 
hear the living Word spoken to him directly. It is 
absurd to tell a man to believe what the Book tells 
him, as a sure means of salvation. One must have 
the Holy Spirit working in him as a regenerating 
force to purify his life. ‘It is senseless foolery 
to assert that pope, bishop, emperor, prince or lord, 
should order or forbid what the people are to believe 
or not to believe. A godless, reprobate knave can- 
not have faith, even though he had the whole ocean 
poured over him, and though he used up all the 
consecrated oil with which the whole world is 
anointed. . . . The holy Christian faith does not 
enter the heart till a man bids farewell to all his 
passions — both of the flesh and of the spirit, yes, 
even the cravings for the gifts of God, such as the 
Holy Scriptures, good words and works.” * 

A complete denial of the efficacy of mere form 
and ritual in religion, an insistence upon earnest- 
ness and morality, emphasis upon the personal re- 
lationship of the believer to God, assertion of the 
responsibility of each individual to choose for him- 
self — these are the characteristic arguments of the 
sermon. Infant baptism avails not, “ for how can 
an irresponsible child, who has neither wits, reason, 


87 Kolde, pp. 23 et seg. Hiaferitz had been a Carmelite 
monk; later, during the year 1522, he had studied at Witten- 
berg. He came to Allstedt as pastor of the Wibertskirche, prob- 
ably before Miinzer’s arrival there. After weathering safely the 
peasants’ revolt, he appears to have returned to the orthodox 
Lutheran faith. 


DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 57 


nor understanding to know what he lacks, accept 
the Christian faith.” The notion of the “ inner 
Word” is clearly brought out.** A tendency to 
spiritualize religion, to get away from organization, 
ceremony, and ritual, is also apparent. This marks 
the direction of Denck’s thought during the next 
few years. But he was to develop these ideas con- 
siderably further before his death.*° 

To these external influences — the study of the 
mystics and the radical propaganda— must be 
added in Denck’s case the strong personal equation. 
He had been trained in the school of humanism and 
had there learned to trust his own reason. In 
Nuremberg he saw religious leaders quarreling 
among themselves, but all none the less appealing 
to the Bible as authority. To him Scripture seemed 
impossible of correct interpretation unless one had 
some guide that would assist in finding the true 
meaning. He discarded the interpretation of au- 
thority and sought a more personal guide. This 
he found in the Holy Spirit — the “ inner Word ” 
by which God communicates directly with the hu- 
man heart. By its help the written Word is made 
clear. Much the same idea may be found in Luther’s 

88 [bid., pp. 23, 27. Kolde calls this the first clear voicing 
of the fundamental tenets of ‘ Anabaptism.” 

89 This is evident from his letter of Oct., 1527, to Gicolam- 
padius, to which reference has already been made. In this he 
insists that he cares not how one worships; form and ritual 
count for nothing. He belongs simply to the brotherhood of 


the followers of Christ. (Pub. by Keller in Ein Apostel der 
Wiedertdufer, pp. 251 et sqq.) 


58 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


early utterances, but Luther found himself under 
the necessity of greatly limiting his theory to meet 
the needs of a practical system. Denck had no 
system to uphold; his was a message for the in- 
dividual, and the keynote of that message was 
freedom.*° ; | 


9° Cf. Jones, Spiritual Reformers, p. 22. 


CHAPTER III 


THE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY 


From the discussion in the preceding chapter it 
would appear that the presence of Denck, during 
the first critical years in the growth of dissent from 
Lutheran orthodoxy, gave special significance to the 
religious situation in Nuremberg. A further reason 
for its claim to our attention is to be found in the 
fact that here, as early as 1525, the Council was 
brought face to face with the problem of concert- 
ing some definite proposals for action to be taken 
in regard to these anarchists in religion. Nurem- 
berg was one of the first cities to embrace the 
Evangelical faith. For a considerable period prior 
to March, 1525, the Council was engaged in form- 
ing plans for the final break with the Catholic 
hierarchy and for the abolition of Catholic rites. 
It was inclined to look sharply at any movement 
which would tend to discredit the new faith. The 
part which Miinzer and his followers were playing 
in the peasant risings of 1524 and 1525 must greatly 
have increased the uneasiness in the city, and 
strengthened the desire to quench any spark of revo- 
lutionary doctrine before it should break into flame. 
Social and religious unrest was growing all over 
Germany. Men everywhere were putting forth fan- 

59 


60 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


tastic and impossible notions, and were appealing 
to Scripture in support of them.t Such propaganda 
tended to cast discredit upon the Evangelical move- 
ment as a whole, and Lutherans had not as yet any 
organization with which to meet the growing danger. 

According to the then prevailing custom there 
had been nothing unusual or revolutionary in the 
action of the Nuremberg authorities in the case of 
the foreign agitators, who were expelled and the 
sale of whose books was forbidden. They had, by 
swift and decisive action, guarded against possible 
sedition and protected the citizens from foreign 
propaganda. Such action was not a subject of es- 
pecial comment, as it was considered one of the 
proper and normal functions of a state. But how 
to deal with its own citizens who had embraced 
radical views was another matter; and this more 
difficult problem now presented itself. Under the 
old laws, both secular and ecclesiastical, heresy — 
and the radical movement would have been con- 
sidered such — had its swift and sure punishment. 
Heretics were tried in ecclesiastical courts and, if 
they proved stubborn, turned over to the secular 
arm for punishment. The Council at Nuremberg, 
however, now recognized no ecclesiastical jurisdic- 
tion in its territories; it had connived with the 
preachers in their refusal to obey the Bishop of 


1 Note for instance the letter of Urbanus Rhegius to Am- 
brosius Blaurer in Briefwechsel der Briider Ambrosius und 
Thomas Blaurer, ed. by T. Schiess, Vol. I, no. 66. 


Mite CLASH WITH AUTHORITY. | 61 


Bamberg when he attempted to exercise his juris- 
dictional function.2, The whole of Luther’s teach- 
ing, since the nailing up of the theses, had been to 
the effect that the civil arm must not be employed 
in dealing with heresy. During the past summer, 
in reply to a letter of Duke John Frederick of 
Saxony, he had written, “‘ There must be sects,” and 
had advised that no measures be taken against them 
by the civil power.* Lutheranism had no theory 
or machinery at hand which could be employed in 
such a case. With ecclesiastical sanctions at an 
end, the question now to be settled was whether 
the civil authority —the state—should assume 
full jurisdiction, or whether false doctrine should 
be left for the clergy to handle through teaching 
and preaching. At Nuremberg, during the months 
from October, 1524, to January, 1525, the Council 
was forced to at least a partial solution of that 
problem. 

The first member of their own community with 
whom the authorities had to deal was one Hans 
Greiffenberger, a painter, who employed spare mo- 


2 Documents in Strobel, Miscellaneen, Bk. III. Pt. II. See 
esp. p. 59, art. 14 of questions asked by the Bishop of Bamberg 
of the Provosts of St. Sebald and St. Lorenz, and the Prior of 
the Augustinians, 12 Sept., 1524. “Item ob sie sich erkennen 
untter des Bischoffs jurisdiction zu seyn. Antwort: Wir haben 
keyn herrn, dann Gott alleyn. Aber umb des willen seyn wir 
aller creatur interworffen, also dem nach das uns auch entgegen 
dem wort Gottes wirt oder wider unser gewissen.” 

8 Yon dem aufruhrischen Geist, July 1524, W. A., 15. 
Luther’s thought in this field will be dealt with at some length 
in the following chapter. 


62 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


ments writing religious tracts. Of his life almost 
nothing is known, but of his writings no less than 
seven pamphlets, written during the years 1523 
and 1524, are still extant. The contents of these 
pamphlets show that the writer was in accord with 
the main tenets of the Lutheran faith. In some 
he takes his stand definitely on the side of Luther, 
basing his argument on the latter’s Freedom of a 
Christian Man; in regard to the others scholarly 
opinion is divided, though the weight of evidence 
seems to indicate that little if anything can be found 
in them contradictory to Luther’s viewpoint.* 
Though his pamphlets offer no definite clue to any 
radical principles, the result was to show that he 
had somewhere imbibed unorthodox notions regard- 
ing the Eucharist. The most probable source from 
which to trace this new influence is Karlstadt’s 
pamphlet, mentioned in the previous chapter, the 
teachings of which Reinhart was busying himself 
in propagating. 

4 I have been able to examine none of these pamphlets my- 
self. A list of them is given in Kolde, pp. 12-24. Will, 
Gelehrten Lexicon I, p. 570 et seq., gives a slightly different 
catalogue containing one book not listed in Kolde. Will says 
of Greiffenberger, “He is worthy of a more careful treatment 
than can be given here because of lack of material. He is one 
of the first who in Nuremberg maintained the truth of the 
Evangelical position.” Keller in his Stawpitz (p. 231 et seq.) sees 
in his pamphlet, “ Ob das evangelium seine Kraft von der Kirche 
habe,” a voicing of the position of the “ Evangelical” groups 
against Luther. Moller (Oszander, p. 66) holds that in his “ Ein 
kurtzer begrif von gutten werken ” he attacks the Lutheran idea 


of the Eucharist; but Kolde does not so read the pamphlet 
(p. 15, note 1). 


THE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY (63 


With the Council he came into collision because 
of some caricatures drawn by him and directed 
against the Pope. As one of the chief counts in 
the charge against him was irregularity in his belief 
concerning the Eucharist, it seems highly probable 
that these caricatures had satirical verses appended 
in which he made some reference to this sacrament.” 
However that may be, the minutes of the Council 
show that he was taken to task because of the cari- 
catures and because, as they alleged, he was entic- 
ing people into a new sect.° A written reply to 
this charge was required from him. When this was 
received it was turned over to Osiander for his 
judgment and advice regarding the proper action 
to be pursued. 

The reply of Osiander, handed to the Council 
some time early in November, merits careful atten- 
tion.’ Osiander’s advice had already been sought 
by the Council regarding the two pamphlets which 
Pfeiffer had been scattering about the city. In that 
instance he was appealed to as an expert to examine 
the pamphlets and report on the character of their 
contents. The Council merely sought advice, which 
he gave. In the case of Greiffenberger, however, 
he went further. He was asked not only to pro- 
nounce upon the orthodoxy of the painter’s reply 

Mer ROlde, “pees, 

6 This second count against Greiffenberger is interesting in 
that it seems to imply the presence of a definite group of 


radicals. 
7 This appears in full as App. II in Kolde, p. 30 et seg. 


64 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


to the charge brought against him, but he was also 
invited to suggest, or at all events did suggest, a 
policy to be pursued by the Council in dealing with 
the case. It is one thing to render an expert opin- 
ion; it is quite another to point out a mode of 
procedure. It marks the beginning of the union 
of civil and religious authority for the suppression 
of heterodoxy in Evangelical Nuremberg. The lat- 
ter advises, the former acts on that advice. 

That Osiander was inclined to be lenient with 
the accused appears in his reply. He affirms that 
he finds in the statement of Greiffenberger nothing 
to which exception could be taken, “‘ except where 
he says that the holy sacrament of the altar is 
simply bread and wine, not flesh and blood.” All 
else therein is written in a perfectly Christian spirit. 
He professes himself surprised that Greiffenberger 
could thus have been led astray. Acting upon the 
suggestion of a friend he discussed the matter with 
him and found him to be in serious error. But in so 
far as this is simply a matter of personal belief it~ 
‘is to be opposed by God’s Word alone.”” However, 
since the painter has openly expressed his views and 
has given others cause for doubt, careful cognizance 
must be taken of the matter for the sake of the 
community, provided he refuses correction. To- 
gether they have carefully gone over the whole mat- 
ter; the true belief has been expounded to him from 
Scripture; his errors have been pointed out; he has 
confessed his errors, and has given assurance that 


THE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY 65 


he will from now on cling to the true faith and will 
give no one else cause to deviate therefrom. 

Now, concluded Osiander, since it is necessary to 
consider not alone the future, but even more the 
present possibility of others falling into like error, 
it seems to me better to accept his promise of cor- 
rection — provided there are no other counts against 
him. For one who has erred, but has truly re- 
pented, is of more value to us as an example of 
such error than ten who might cling to their fault 
and be punished by the authorities. Therefore it 
seems best to me that he should be dealt with in 
all kindliness. 

It would have been well had Osiander remained 
true to this spirit of forbearance. Especially to be 
noted in this opinion is his argument that. wrong be- 
lief is not in itself a matter over which the civil au- 
thorities have any jurisdiction. In this he was one 
with Luther; he held that God’s Word must con- 
tend in this field. But the propagation of error 
must not be tolerated. In case one proved a source 
of contamination to the community some appro- 
priate action should be forthcoming. What that 
action should be we are not informed, but that the 
civil power might in such cases proceed to punish- 
ment seems never to have been doubted. (he 
question of when and how far it might act was 
merely a matter of expediency.* 


8 Upon what grounds the civil power would act we are left 
to conjecture. I suspect, however, that there was an ill-defined 


66 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


The Council accepted the advice of the preacher, 
trusting apparently in the thorough character of 
Greiffenberger’s conversion. Though considered 
worthy of punishment he was allowed to go free, 
the Council contenting itself with a warning. He 
was told that his actions would be watched; that 
he was to desist from painting any more carica- 
tures; that he must avoid any return to the group 
through whom he had fallen into error; and, finally, 
that he was to make full retraction.° 

On the same day, 11 November, that his case 
was disposed of, the Council was considering that 
of a certain Marx von Weiblingen. Marx kept a 
public house, and word had come to the authori- 
ties that among his guests there had been loose 
talking concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s 
Supper. He was ordered to give an account of the 
proceedings at his tavern and to give the names of 
the guests there present.'° No further action was 
taken, however. The incident simply serves to in- 
dicate the continued agitation due to this radical 
element. 


sense that the propagation of error constituted sedition. Luther, 
however, only a few weeks before had stated clearly that this 
was not sedition and that the civil power was not competent 
to take action in such matters. (See letter to John Frederick 
of Saxony, W. A., 15, pp. 210-221.) But Luther himself had 
already been constrained to modify his views somewhat in the 
case of Karlstadt. That the theory here voiced is, however, 
more drastic than Luther’s at this period there can, I think, be 
no question. 

® Minutes of Council, 11 November. In Kolde, p. 15, note ee 

10 Kolde, p. 16, note 2. 


THE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY 67 


When Osiander made his report to the Council 
regarding Greiffenberger, he at the same time 
handed it a “short account of the causes which 
may have led the common, untutored man to con- 
sider the holy sacrament of the altar bread and 
wine only, and not the flesh and blood of Christ; 
together with a short discussion of the passages of 
Scripture against which such errors beat and break 
themselves in vain.” ** By this means he hoped to 
strengthen the faith of any who might be wavering 
on the brink of error. But such efforts were ren- 
dered nugatory by active propaganda from outside 
and the increasing fondness exhibited by some mem- 
bers of the community for questioning accepted doc- 
trines. Scarcely a day passed without the Council 
having to do with some question concerning irreg- 
ularity in religious belief.** Continual vigilance was 
required. On 28 December Erasmus Wisperger, a 
clerk, was taken into custody for reading aloud in 
the market-place from one of Karlstadt’s pamphlets, 
despite the decree of the Council forbidding the 
possession of his books.** ‘Three days later Hans 
Platner, an otherwise unknown painter, together 
with several other persons, was accused of some 
loose talking in regard to the Eucharist.” 


11 Moller, Andreas Osiander; Leben und ausgewahlte Schrif- 
ten, p. 67) eb sqq. 

12 Kolde, p. 12. 

13 Minutes of the Council, 28 Dec. (Kolde, p. 18 et seq. and 
note 1, p. 19.) To Dominicus Schleupner was given the task of 
instructing him in the true faith. 

14 Minutes of the Council, 31 Dec., “ungeschickte red von 
sacrament geredt lassen annemen.” (Kolde, p. 19, note 1.) 


68 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


All this came suddenly to a head early in the fol- 
lowing month. It was then brought to the attention 
of the authorities that two painters had been guilty 
of voicing extreme views regarding the nature of the 
Eucharist. These two men were the brothers Bartel 
and Sebald Behaim, of the school of Albrecht 
Diirer.° On the 1oth January the Council held a 


15 One is struck by the fact that the majority of those whose 
radicalism was brought to the attention of the Council at this 
time were painters. Kolde (p. 19) explains this on the ground 
that the introduction of the Evangelical faith into Nuremberg 
had greatly injured their profession inasmuch as the sale of 
saints’ pictures and the like fell off immensely. This threw them 
into opposition to all religion. Keller explains it in a manner 
entirely different. According to his view Direr, along with a 
number of other leading men of Nuremberg, if not whole- 
heartedly a Waldensian, had, at least, strong leanings in that 
direction. The Behaim brothers were pupils of his and drew 
much of their inspiration, both artistic and religious, from him. 

The question is interesting but is very much in the air, and 
is not sufficiently essential for our present purpose to justify its 
discussion here. For the differing points of view of Keller and 
the Lutheran theologians championed by Kolde, see especially 
Keller’s Johann von Staupitz (chap. 8), Die Waldenser und die 
Bibeliibersetzungen, and Grundfragen der Reformationsgeschichte: 
eine Auseinandersetzung mit litterarischen Gegnern; Kolde’s 
Johann von Staupitz ein Waldenser und Wiedertaufer in Z. K. G. 
VII, p. 426 et sqq. 

Biographers of the various leaders — Karlstadt, Miéiinzer, 
Denck, et al.— make a point, properly enough, of seeking to 
trace the influence of their respective subjects upon the radical 
movement as a whole. For two reasons no such attempt is 
made here. In the first place, the important thing for our 
study is to discover the relations between the sectaries, of what- 
ever complexion, and the Evangelical authorities; and in the 
second place, any attempt to differentiate, further than has 
already been done, between various lines of thought would 
necessarily proceed from the investigation of all available source 
material, much of which remains still hidden in the archives of 
central Europe. 


THE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY 69 


preliminary examination of these men. At this hear- 
ing another painter, Georg Pentz, and the rector 
of St. Sebald, were indicated as having been in the 
groups where the Behaim brothers had expressed 
their doubts [Mangel] in regard to certain points 
of doctrine.*® 

The odium of being the inspirer and leader of 
this group seemed to attach itself to Denck. He 
was, therefore, immediately taken into custody. 
His preliminary hearing proved unsatisfactory.*’ 
He was thereupon required to put into writing his 
belief regarding various points of Christian doc- 
trine, and this document was then turned over to 
a group of five preachers for their opinion upon 
the points there set forth.** 


16 The documents are given in Zum Prozess des Johann 
Denck und der “drei gottlosen Maler” von Nurnberg, pp. 244 
et sqq. But since they are undated it is impossible to deter- 
mine with complete accuracy just when the hearing was held 
at which Denck was implicated. (Cf. ibid., p. 243.) In the 
minutes of the Council for 12 Jan., however, three painters 
(Behaim brothers and Pentz) are mentioned (ibid., p. 230). It 
seems probable, therefore, that the hearing of 10 Jan. was the 
one at which Denck and Pentz were implicated. 

17 Ibid., pp. 237, 243. 

18 Die syben artickel, mir fiirgehalten sind dise: was ich von 
der schrift, siind, gerechtigkeyt gottes, gesetz, evangeli, tauff, und 
nachtmal halte. (Denck to Council of Augsburg, 1526. In 
Keller, Ein Apostel der Wiedertdufer, p. 250.) Denck here says 
that Osiander was to reply to this discussion of his on these 
points. But they are identical with the points mentioned in 
the Gutachten of the five preachers. (Zum Prozess des Johann 
Denck und der “drei Gottlosen Maler,’ p. 237 et sqq.) Keller 
inclines to connect Denck’s trial with an earlier disagreement 
with Osiander concerning the Eucharist, and Denck’s letter to 
the Council of Augsburg seems to bear out this contention. 


7O RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


This confession of faith — for such it amounted 
to — indicates how fluid were Denck’s ideas at this 
time. In some places it is vague and obscure al- 
most to the point of being unintelligible. Through 
the whole of it there runs a mystical strain. Most 
prominently expressed is the belief in the imme- 
diacy of the relationship between the individual and 
his God, and the uselessness of forms and sacra- 
ments as a means of attaining to a state of grace. 

It is worth while to consider this statement with 
some care as it shows clearly with what manner of 
revolt the magistracy was called upon to deal. A 
paraphrase, therefore, of the main points will not 
be out of place. 

I find, he writes, that I am innately a wretched 
person, subject to every illness of body and soul. 
But I feel also within me something which power- 
“Ich bin bey anderhalb jaren daselb schulmeister gewesen und 
hinden nach mit Osiander, daselbst prediger, ettlicher wort halben 
vom sacrament sonderlich zwispennig worden und darauff fir 
einen E. rat gefordert und erschinen zu verantworten... .” 
Keller assumes that it was at the instance of Osiander that 
Denck was cited before the Council in December. (Op. cit., 
p. 37, and Reformation und Ketzerschulen, p. 39.) The docu- 
ments as Kolde has edited them tell no such story. Osiander 
does not appear as the accuser of Denck nor is there any in- 
dication that the latter was apprehended before 1o Jan., at the 
earliest. Just why he should write as he did to the Council 
at Augsburg it is difficult to determine. It is probable, how- 
ever, that he never knew the true reason for his arrest, and 
simply attributed it to his quarrel with Osiander. That he 
would attempt to make the charge against him seem minor, 


inasmuch as he was urging that he be allowed to settle in 
Augsburg, is also probable. (Cf. Kolde, p. 50, note 2.) 


DMEACLAS Hr WET AU DOR DT Y y i 


fully opposes this innate wretchedness and shows 
me the way to life and blessedness to which it 
seems as impossible for my spirit to rise as it 
seems impossible for my body to rise to the visible 
heavens. It is said that by faith one may attain 
life. That may be, but how comes one to that 
faith? If it is innate then must “ life” also be in- 
nate, but that cannot be. From childhood I learned 
the faith’? from my parents by word of mouth, 


19 This probably means the Credo of the Catholic faith, or 
at least the traditional beliefs which he had imbibed as a child. 
Kolde (Hans Denck und die gottlosen Maler, p. 53) 
comments thus on the passage: “Er habe von Kindheit an 
von seinen Eltern “den Glauben” gelernt und deutlich iden- 
tifiziert er in romischer Weise das Credo oder das Fiirwahrhalten 
desselben mit dem von ihm bekamften aber vollig unverstandenen 
evangelischen Glaubensbegriff.” On this cf. also Keller, Staupitz, 
p. 233, note, where is suggested a different interpretation. 

The whole of this important passage is obscure. It reads 
as follows: 

Ich Johann Dengk bekenn das ich in der warhayt befinde, 
fiil and spiir, das ich angeborner weysz ein armutseliger mensch 
bin, nemlich der aller kranckheyt leybs und der seelen under- 
worffen ist. 

Spiir aber doch darneben auch ettwas in mir, das mir 
meinem angebornen muttwillen krefftig widerstand thut, und 
zaygt mir an ain leben oder seligkait dahin es mein seel so 
unmiiglich gedunkt zu kommen, als es meinen leyb unmiuglich 
gedunckt in den sichtigen himel zu steygen. 

Man sagt, durch den glauben kumme man zu dem leben. 
Lass ich sein. Wer gibt mir aber den glauben? Ist er mir 
angeborn, so miisst ich doch das leben von angeborner weysz 
haben, das ist nit. 

Ich hab von kindheyt auff von meinen eltern den glauben 
gelernt im mund umbgezogen, darnach auch durch menschliche 
bucher gelesen und noch vil mehr mich eins glaubens gerimbt, 
aber in der warhayt das gegentayl so mir von natur angeborn 
ist, nye recht betracht, wie wol es mir zu vil malen fur geworf- 
fen ist. 


72 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


later read books that discussed it, and even more 
I boasted thereof. But in truth, though it had often 
troubled me, I had never rightly considered the 
opposite which is inborn in me. This innate wretch- 
edness shows me clearly that it was a false faith 
to which I clung. ~ For indeed, the more I strive, 
the more I am gripped by this inborn sickness or 
wretchedness. 

I would gladly have faith, a faith that is life, 
but since such a faith does not seem to be a part 
of my being, I cannot deceive myself or others. 
In truth, should I say today that I have faith, to- 
morrow I might prove myself false — and yet not 
I but the truth [die warhayt] which I experience 
within me. This voice within me I know to 
be the truth; therefore, if God wills, I shall obey 
it and will permit no one to take it from me. 


Disen falschen glauben strafft gewissz vorgemelte angeborne 
armutseligkayt. Damn ich sihe in der warheytt, das alle die 
weyl dise angeborne kranckhayt oder armutseligkayt nicht im 
grund abnymbt, ye mer ich mich butz und mutz, ye mer sy von 
notten zunymbt. 


Ich wollt gern das ich glauben, das ist leben hette. Aber 
dieweyl sichs nit griindtlich in mir erfindet, mag ich weder mich 
noch ander leut betriegen. 

Ja wann ich heut saget, ich glaube, so m6cht ich mich 
morgen doch selbs lig straffen, aber nit ich, sonder die warhayt, 
so ich in mir zum teyl empfinde. 

Dises weysz ich bey mir gewisz, das es die warhayt ist, 
darumb will ich im ob gott will zu héren, was es mir sagen 
wolle, und wer es mir nemen will, dem will ich nit gestatten. 
(Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “drei gottlosen 
Maler,” pp. 231 et seq.) - 


THE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY 73 


When I attempt to interpret Scripture by my 
own powers, I can understand nothing. Of myself 
I cannot believe Scripture. But this power within 
me that drives me without my will or assistance, 
that it is which forces me to read Scripture as a wit- 
ness of the truth.”° And as I read it I find therein 
witness to the fact that the power that thus drives 
me is Christ, to whom Scripture bears testimony as 
the son of the All-Highest. Therefore I hold with 
Peter that Scripture is a light that shines through 
the darkness. But that darkness will not be en- 
tirely dispelled until the everlasting light shines 
forth, when the sun of Christ’s righteousness ap- 
pears and lightens our hearts, then will the dark- 
ness of unbelief be driven away. But such light is 
not yet in me. 

Since such darkness is still in me, how can I of 
myself understand Scripture? and, aecinrel how 
can I from Scripture attain to faith? One must 
await the revelation from God. Where a man will 
not await such revelation, but takes to himself work 
which appertains to the spirit of God and Christ, 
he makes of the secrets of God an abomination 
before Him, and makes of the grace of God mere 
lewdness, as can be learned from the Epistle of 
Jude and from II Peter 2. It is through this that 
so many sects have arisen since the apostles, which 


20 Von natur kan ich ye der schrifft nit glauben. Aber das 
in mir, nit das mein, (sag ich) sonder das mich treybt, on allen 
meinen willen und zuthun, das treybt mich die schrifft zu lesen 
umb zeugknusz willen. (Jbid., p. 232.) 


74 : RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


have all armed themselves with misunderstood texts 
of Scripture, because they have trusted to their 
own presumption, and have of themselves assumed 
a false faith before they have received true faith 
from God. Therefore, said Peter, Scripture is not 
a matter of one’s own interpretation, but belongs 
to the Holy Ghost who was also the first to give 
it. “Of this interpretation of the Holy Spirit each 
individual must first make sure by himself. When 
he does not do this, it is false and of no account. 
What is false and worthless can be refuted by other 
texts from Scripture.” ** 

This is the fundamental basis of Denck’s belief. 
Instead of the man by nature wholly evil, he feels 
within him an impulse struggling toward goodness 
and light. ‘This must be aided by the spirit of 
Christ working through the individual soul and 
compelling it toward the right. This is the “ inner 
Word,” so-called, and by its aid Scripture is to be 
understood. This thought is not so radically dif- 
ferent from Luther’s early belief in the Word of 
God in Scripture. But while Luther was gradually 
being driven to seek some form of external author- 
ity Denck, on the other hand, had advanced to the 
thought of a subjective norm; the spirit of Christ 
which made possible the correct understanding of 
Scripture was within the individual. Luther, too, 


21 Dieser auszlegung des geysts musz ein yeglicher zu vor 
bey ym selbs gewissz sein, wo nit, so ists falsch und _ nichts. 
was falsch und nichts ist, kan man mit anderm gezeugknusz 
der schrift niderlegen. (bid., p. 233.) 


Pi A bAS Haw it WAT DH OR TTY 75 


had said that through the aid of the Holy Ghost 
the individual should read and interpret the Scrip- 
tures for himself. That such a theory would lead 
to varying interpretations he had not foreseen. But 
what he claimed for himself another was sure to 
demand, with the inevitable result that unanimity 
in belief would be shattered. 

There was one point, however, at which Denck’s 
thought was opposed to Luther’s, and this the 
Nuremberg theologians were not slow to seize upon. 
Denck felt within himself an impulse toward good- 
ness. Man is not therefore by nature wholly evil 
and incapable of any good thing. More than 
Luther he stressed the responsibility of the indi- 
vidual. It is incumbent upon him to give ear to 
the inner voice and to seek to become right with 
God, and to him God may speak directly without 
the mediation of a priesthood or even of a book. 

_ Upon this foundation Denck built his conception 
of sin, God’s righteousness [Gerechtigkeit Gottes], 
the law, the gospel — the special points upon which 
he was interrogated by the preachers.” The time 
allowed him did not permit a discussion of bap- 
tism and the Eucharist.” As these were two 
of the principal points in question, the Council gave 
him more time in which to complete his statement. 
His belief concerning baptism clearly shadows the 
later “‘ Anabaptist” viewpoint. It is only as the 
outward sign of a spirit right with God that bap- . 

22 Ibid., p. 233 et seq. 2ee TDi Daves ts 


76 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


tism has any meaning or efficacy. The belief of 
the individual must precede the act; he who be- 
lieves and is baptized, he is made blessed. To 
the man who is essentially unclean in body and 
soul, outward washing avails nothing; the cleans- 
ing process must proceed from within. The al- 
mighty Word of God must find lodgment in the 
heart of man. The baptism of Christ is of the 
spirit, a consummation of His work, the sign of a 
conscience at peace with God. Outward baptism is 
.not essential for salvation, but the baptism of the 
spirit is essential. “‘ Therefore it stands written, 
he who believes and is baptized, shall be saved ” 
(Mk. 16:16).* Nor is his belief concerning the 
nature of the sacrament of the altar any less revo- 
lutionary. To partake of the Eucharist with profit 
one must first become one with Christ. It is a 
very wholesome reuniting with Christ if partaken 
of by a believer. Faith, however, is necessary. It 
must be partaken of in both kinds, and is thus 
the outward expression of inner love and faith. 
One can live without the “ outward bread ” through 
the power of God, as did Moses on Sinai and Christ 
in the Wilderness, but without the “ inner bread ” 
can no one live, for by faith live the righteous. 
‘Who believes not, lives not.” *° | 
All this, concludes Denck, I confess before God 
invisible, upon whom I cast myself without reserve. 
On 16 January this confession of faith was turned 


“a0 Did: he 2sA ner sede 20e 1010.5) Dp. 235 cet seu: 


Dade CA oe WD Re eAtUE EO RE TY ris 


over to the preachers for their judgment.”® Their 
answer was handed to the Council a few days 
later.2” This document is as interesting as is the 
statement which called it forth. While the latter 
indicates the ideas that the defenders of the 
Lutheran faith considered it necessary to suppress, 
the former serves as a key to the developing Evan- 
gelical policy of repression. In it one finds none of 
the moderation shown by Osiander in the case of 
Greiffenberger a few months previously. In their 
view matters have now gone too far. It is no time 
to discuss leniency when the faith that one has 
struggled to establish is endangered and the good 
name of one’s city as well as the whole Evangelical 
cause is being brought into disrepute by hare- 
brained fanatics.” | 

After rehearsing how Denck had been spreading 
error among the people, had been examined orally 
by the preachers without satisfactory results, and 
had then been required to answer in writing ques- 
tions regarding his faith, they proceeded to take 
sharp exception to this written reply. He had not 
given a straightforward answer to the questions pro- 
pounded to him, but had exerted himself to render 

Seri ids) D237 ana note. I. 

27 Probably 20 Jan., not 11 Jan., as in Keller, Ein Apostel 
der Wiedertéufer, p. 39. Cf. Zum Prozess des Johann Denck 
und “drei gottlosen Maler,’ p. 237 and note 2. The document 
is there printed, pp. 237-242. 

28 Note the statement of the theologians, found in Zum 


Prozess des Johann Denck und der “drei gottlosen Maler,” 
p. 248. 


78 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


his thought abstract, “for the written statement 
is not so pointed as his speech”’ [dann die schrifft 
redet nicht so spitzig als er thut]. The way in 
which he has colored his ideas makes it evident that 
an alien spirit impels him, and not at all the spirit 
of Christ which has worked through all the proph- 
ets and apostles in a far different manner. It is 
possible to construe his written reply so as to make 
it seem orthodox and in such wise that his words 
might be tolerated, but we know well the wiles of 
Satan, who thus seeks to nullify the power of God.” 
Where one holds partly to Scripture as expounded 
by the Holy Ghost and partly to his own vague 
notions, the inevitable outcome is division, argu- 
ment, and mutual distrust. Thus it was that the 
tower of Babel could not be built after people be- 
gan to talk in different tongues. Even so we can- 
not rightly interpret the Holy Gospel if we do not 
speak in the same terms — terms which we must 
learn from the Holy Spirit through Scripture. 


29 IT cannot wholly agree. with Keller (Ein Apostel der 
Wiedertdufer, p. 40) when he says that the preachers are here 
saying that Denck might be tolerated were it not for the neces- 
sity of maintaining unity in the Lutheran Church. There is 
no question that the maintenance of unity was the compelling 
motive with them, but that they further condemned his teach- 
ing as unchristian and therefore not to be tolerated, is shown 
by the preceding sentence. ‘Also das es billich einem yeden 
Rechten Christen umb der ursach willen solt argwonig sein, 
dann das sein red nicht die art sey, die der heilig gaist. In der 
schrifft allenthalben furet, ist so klar unnd offenbar, das wir 
unns gentzlich versehen, er selbs konns und werds nicht laugnen.” 
(Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “ drei gottlosen Maler,” 
p. 237. Cf. also ‘Kolde, p. 60, note.) 


Ra VST AS HOW TT HA Uris EO RIT Y 79 


Here it will be noted the theologians took issue 
with Denck’s notion of the “inner Word.” There 
is but one way to interpret Scripture. He should 
have recognized the absolute authority of the Bible. 
There is no difficulty in understanding Scripture if 
one honestly wishes to comprehend its meaning. 
Only when one has no desire to follow the pre- 
cepts therein found does one experience difficulty 
in interpretation. God is the master; the Bible or 
sermon, the tool; as little as the master can accom- 
plish anything without the tool, will God give faith 
to one who despises Scripture or preaching. ‘Thus 
would the good Lutheran divines dispose of Denck’s 
appeal to a subjective norm, an “ inner Word.” 

With this prelude the theologians then launched 
a specific attack against Denck who held that Scrip- 
ture simply bears testimony to the truth of God, 
which he felt to be immediately within him. Were 
this the spirit of Christ within him, then he must 
have faith. But he admitted that he has not at- 
tained faith. That something within him, then, 
must be the devil. | 

In his answers to the specific questions put to 
him regarding law, sin, the gospel, etc., the theo- 
logians found Denck to be, in their view, hope- 
lessly in error. Not only did he contradict himself, 
but his error was in some cases worse than that 
of the Papists, nay, even than that of the Jews. 
His notion of the “inner baptism ” was absolutely 
false. One cannot hold that the baptism of water 


80 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


is unnecessary. This is entirely capable of proof 
from Holy Writ. Regarding the Eucharist, he has 
answered: at length with arguments spun from his 
own head rather than grounded in Scripture. His 
examiners seem to assume that Denck had accepted 
Karlstadt’s notion of the symbolic nature of the 
Eucharist, since their argument consists chiefly in 
showing that the body and blood of Christ is ac- 
tually present in the bread and wine. From 
Denck’s utterances one may easily gather that he 
was tending toward a rationalistic explanation of 
this sacrament; he makes the partaking of it a 
matter of no great importance, but it is not possible 
to find that he anywhere denies the real presence of 
Christ in the sacrament.*° 

From these errors the theologians affirm they 
tried diligently to win Denck, but to no avail. To 
all instruction from them he turned a deaf ear. He 
has asserted in his statement that he has the truth 
and will permit no one to take it from him. More- 
over, he has circulated a copy of that statement 
throughout the community, a thing which he cer- 
tainly would not have done had he wished to show 
himself amenable to instruction. From his attempt 
thus to spread broadcast his subversive doctrines it 
is clear that there is a whole group of people who are 
propagating these errors and who would be inter- 


80 Kolde has pointed this out, p. 61, note. The documents 
are in Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “ drei gottlosen 
Maler ’”’ — Denck’s view, p. 235 et seqg., the theologians, p. 241 
et seq. 


Pere u ASH IWLUH AWLHORIT YY -<S5 


ested in his defense. For this reason they have 
directed their reply to the Council instead of to 
Denck; the latter plan seemed merely a waste of 
time. If the Council so directs, however, they will 
continue their attempts to win him a better under- 
standing. In case their efforts prove unavailing, 
it will then be the duty of the Council, by virtue of 
its office and its responsibility to God, to devise 
measures to prevent the further spread of this 
poisonous error among the people.** 

There seems to have been no doubt in the minds 
of the members of the Council regarding the means 
which that body should employ to protect the com- 
munity against the “ poisonous error.” On 21 Jan- 
-uary the banishment of Denck was decreed. The 
terms of this decree are interesting and instruc- 
tive: 

Since master Hans Denck, schoolmaster at St. | 
Sebald’s, has introduced several unchristian errors touch- 
ing our holy faith, has propagated the same and at- 
tempted to defend them; since he has, in doing this, 
shown himself wholly stupid and contemptible before 
the theologians and doctors in the presence of the rep- 
resentatives of this Council; since he will accept no in- 
struction from them by Scriptural proof, but rather trusts 
his own wilful head; and since he then submitted in 
writing his answer, not in clear form, but twisted and 


31... s0 wirt als dan eurn E.w. vonn ambts und gott- 
licher ordnung wegen gepurn einsehen zu thun damit sie ir 
gifftig irthumb (das sie doch nicht unterlassen) nicht weiter 
unter das volck auspraitten. (Zum Prozess des Johann Denck 
und der “ drei gottlosen Maler,”’ p. 242.) 


82 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


involved, to the articles proposed to him: it is, therefore, 
to be understood that any further instruction in the 
Scripture will bear no fruit, and it is considered by this 
Council as scandalous, dangerous, and unchristian toward 
the community to tolerate such errors in this city and 
Christian community. And therefore, in view of the 
above-mentioned and other weighty reasons, this city and 
territory to the distance of ten miles is forbidden to the 
said Hans Denck.*” 

He was ordered to leave before night and not 
to return on pain of severe punishment. 

Apparently dazed by the sharpness and sudden- 
ness of the blow, Denck obeyed the sentence with- 
out protest or delay. While comprehending only 
imperfectly the cause and feeling himself innocent 
of the charges brought against him, he none the 
less made no attempt to secure a reconsideration 
of the case.** 

From the documents summarized above, it may 
be gathered that Denck was banished because he 
held and taught beliefs contrary to the Christian 
faith as understood by the theologians and by the 
members of the Council of Nuremberg who followed 
them. There is no indication in the records of his 
trial that he consciously attempted to undermine 
the power of the civil authority.** Denck’s fault 

32 This decree is found in Keller, Ein Apostel der Wieder- 
taufer, p. 249, and in Kolde, p. 62. 

83 Kolde, p. 63 and Denck’s letter to Augsburg, in Keller, 
4bid., (PD. 280) 


34 Two or three passages might be construed to indicate 
that the Council feared sedition. The painters, whose trial 


THE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY 83 


was of a purely spiritual nature, the punishment for 
which, as Luther had warmly insisted but little more 
than a year earlier, belonged to God alone.” 

The charges brought against the painters, in so 
far as they had to do with the denial of the civil 
power, were somewhat more serious.** On 16 Jan- 
uary they were examined, the interrogation falling 
under six heads: (1) whether they believed in God; 
(2) what they believed concerning the nature of 
Christ; (3) whether the holy evangel and Word 
of God are comprised in Scripture; (4) concern- 
ing the nature of the Eucharist; (5) concerning 
baptism; (6) whether they believed in the civil 
power and recognized the Council of Nuremberg 
as ruler of their lives, property and externals [was 


will be discussed in the following pages, were accused of sedi- 
tion. In the “Gutachten” of the preachers regarding Denck, 
they use the word sie (they) referring apparently to Denck and 
the painters. Denck himself speaks of the “ gefangene Briider ” 
and Sebald Behaim speaks of Denck as one of the men to 
whom he had expressed his “ Mangel.” These instances may 
go to show that in the thought of the authorities Denck was 
guilty of sedition, or at least that his teaching would lead to 
sedition. On the other hand, the charge is nowhere made 
against him and the theologians even go so far as to say that 
Denck has never denied the authority of the civil power. The 
conclusion seems irresistible that Denck was tried and banished 
simply for religious error wilfully persisted in. 

35 Yon weltlicher Obrigkeit, W. A., I1, p. 245 et seq. 

36 On 12 January it was ordered that they be held in cap- 
tivity, two days later they were to be examined in the torture: 
chamber (but not under torture) concerning their beliefs rela- 
tive to the civil power and regarding their associates. (Zum 
Prozess des Johann Denck und der “drei gottlosen Maler,” 


Pp. 230.) 


84 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


eusserlich ist]. Their replies to these questions 
indicate the unformed and somewhat bizarre ideas 
of this group of young artists and show how danger- 
ous their theories might be deemed to established 
faith and civic order. The first question they an- 
swered in the affirmative; the questions regarding 
Scripture, Christ, Eucharist, baptism, they answered 
equivocally; to the last question they returned a 
flat negative.*’ 

It is not necessary to go further into the details 
of the trial of these painters. It was suspended on 
18 January until the charges against Denck could 
be disposed of finally. The minutes of the Council 
for 23 January contain a record to the effect that 
the preachers were to examine each man separately 
on 25 January.** The following day the Council 
decided to seek advice from the preachers, together 
with three jurists (Scheurl, Protz, and Marstaller), 
regarding the measures which should be taken in 
dealing with them.*® The same day the reply of 


87 Ibid., p. 245. (1) Ja, (2) halt nichts von Christo, (3) 
wisz nit obs heilig sey, (4) halt nichts davon, (5) nichts, (6) 
neyn. ‘These were the answers of the Behaim brothers. Pentz 
was slightly more moderate in his reply to the sixth question 
— “wisz von keynem hern dann allein von Got.” This, after 
all, when one allows for the bias of the examiners and of the 
scribe who wrote down the jottings, is not so different from the 
answer of the Provosts of St. Sebald and St. Lorenz to the 
Bishop of Bamberg on 12 Sept., 1524, when they said they had 
no lord but God and refused to recognize the authority of the 
Bishop. (Strobel, Bk. III, Pt. II, p. 59.) 

de Magtebe 2 wh oY Ee, 

B21 D2 DAT. 


LHC LAS HI WITH AUTHORITY 85 


this committee of theologians and jurists was de- 
bated before the Council. The report of this debate 
shows that all were agreed that the painters were 
guilty of blasphemy and opposition to the civil 
power.*° 

The preachers, basing their argument on Scrip- 
ture, urged that stringent measures be taken against 
them. They had tried to spread their error; they 
had refused all instruction until a sullen assent 
had been wrung from them, after two weeks of 
imprisonment had rendered them more amenable to 
reason. But such a confession amounts to little. 
One of their number had been heard to remark, 
“Plenty of talk, but no proof.” ** Unless they 
were to experience a thorough conversion, it would 
be necessary to excommunicate them. With this 
the civil power might well be satisfied, and bear 
with them if they would at all listen to instruction. 
There would remain, however, the danger that their 
error might be spread further and cause tumult and 
bloodshed before the magistrates could learn of it. 
Such an outcome would redound greatly to the dis- 
credit of the gospel; the advance of God’s truth 
would be seriously hindered; the devil would again 
be set up in place of God. The suggestion of the 


49 Ibid., p. 247 et sqq. 

41 Sebald Behaim had, however, expressed entire readiness 
to be instructed (ibid., p. 244) and the professions of conver- 
sion made by all of them seem to have satisfied the jurists 
(p. 248). One wonders if considerable animus did not enter into 
this statement of the preachers. 


86 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


preachers was, therefore, that the civil power should 
follow the lead of the Church and banish them from 
the city. 

The jurists differed with the theologians in re- 
gard to the penalty to be imposed. There was no 
question, they said, that imperial law gave the right 
to banish all those who abandoned the true faith. 
But, on the other hand, it was also true that some 
of the followers of Arius, when they acknowledged 
their error, were not banished. In their judgment 
the painters had been sufficiently punished by their 
two weeks of imprisonment. Let them be further 
instructed; let the people be cautioned by the 
preachers against falling into such errors. In case 
they persist in their error, the Council will then 
have a free hand to act as it sees fit. 

To this judgment of the jurists the theologians 
objected on the ground that it would mean coercion 
of belief. While these men had been labored with 
in prison in regard to their errors, it was not at all 
to compel them to conform, but merely to instruct 
them. If they were to be permitted to remain in 
the community, but forced to conform, that would 
be compulsion in matters of belief. Such compul- 
sion is unjustifiable.** Moreover, if they were al- 


42 Tt will be noted that the jurists conceived of the action 
to be taken by the Council as punishment for past offences, 
the theologians as a means of protecting the community from 
dangerous propaganda. The civil power must not exert com-~ 
pulsion in matters of faith, but it is its duty to protect the 
faithful from contamination. 


PE CLASH SWITH AUTHORITY (87 


lowed to remain in the community, they would 
jeopardize the faith of others. The times and the 
temper of the people were to be considered rather 
than precedent. Expediency therefore demanded 
their expulsion from the community. 

The arguments of the preachers seemed to the 
Council conclusive; the painters were immediately 
banished.** Several others, who had been arrested 
on suspicion of heterodox opinions, were at the same 
time released after having proved amenable to 
instruction.” 

Thus the curtain falls on the first act of the drama 
enacted in Nuremberg between those who stood for 
the authority of the Evangelical Church and those 
who stood for the freedom of the individual in 
matters pertaining to his relations with his God. 
It is not here a question of attempting to justify 
one or the other side of the controversy, or to pro- 
nounce moral judgment upon conflicting ideas in- 
volved, though one may or may not approve of 


43 Kolde, p. 69, and Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und 
der “drei gottlosen Maler,’ p. 250. The arguments of the 
preachers are to be found summarized under six heads. Ibid., 
D. (240) ef sed. 

44 These were Sebald Baumhauer, probably son of the ves- 
tryman of St. Sebald’s, whose beliefs were much akin to Denck’s 
(ibid., p. 245); Veit Wirsperger, who apparently was implicated 
by Sebald Behaim (ibid., p. 244, “ veyt glasers sone”), but who 
testified against the Behaim brothers (ibid., p. 246); Ludwig 
Krueg (zbid., p. 246); Cunz Kobalt (Kolde, p. 66, note 1); 
Caspar Korn (Kolde, p. 66, note 2). Concerning Sebald Baum- 
hauer see Keller, Die Waldenser und die Bibeliibersetzungen, p. 
34 et seqg., and Kolde, in Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen 1887, 
Daher ce Sod. 


88 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


methods employed. The quarrel was between two 
mutually antagonistic ideals, the fundamental ques- 
tion at issue being the right and the competence of 
the individual to choose freely for himself in mat- 
ters of faith. : 

It may be well to recapitulate briefly the points 
at issue. On what grounds did the civil authorities 
proceed against these first radicals? The charge 
brought against Greiffenberger was that he was in 
error concerning certain articles of faith, and that 
he was inducing others to form a new sect. Osian- 
der’s opinion at that time was that such errors were 
‘to be combated by the Word of God alone, un- 
less the community was endangered by them. The 
purport of his language seemed to be that a situa- 
tion might arise in which the civil power should act. 
The question of when this point should be reached 
seems to be one merely of expediency. Against 
Denck also there was no indication of any charge 
other than error in religious belief, wilfully per- 
sisted in and taught to others. His accusers even 
take the trouble to point out that he has never 
“refused his obligation and oath to the temporal 
ruler.” *° They therefore see in the fact that he 
was considered the prime mover in the radical prop- 
aganda no hint of any direct blow at the power of 
the state. The case of the painters is somewhat 
different; new issues are here raised. They were 


45 Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “ drei gottlosen 
Maler,” p. 250. 


THE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY 89 


accused of having had dealings with Reinhart; * 
with having gone about with Miinzer’s and Karl- 
stadt’s books in their possession; ** with having car- 
ried on active propaganda not only in Nuremberg 
but in the surrounding territory; ** with error in 
belief wilfully persevered in; and with denial of 
the civil power. Specifically the charge was blas- 
phemy and sedition. A careful reading of the docu- 
ments reveals clearly the fact that the considera- 
tion which bulked most largely in the minds of 
their accusers, of the theologians who examined 
them, and of the Council that sentenced them, was 
that they were undermining the religious doctrines 
that were dominant in Nuremberg at that time, and 
were spreading their dangerous beliefs among the 
people. “The new gospel will be brought to 
shame,” was the cry of the preachers.** There 
still exist the arguments, drawn up under six heads, 
showing why, in the opinion of the ministers, these 
painters should not be allowed to remain in the 
city.°° These arguments emphasize almost wholly 
the fact that the painters were spreading errors 
which involve the soul’s salvation, and not merely 
temporal affairs.°* The jurists do not seem to have 


46 Tbid., p. 246 and note 2. 

47 Ibid., p. 246. 

48 [bid., Pp. 237- 

49 Ibid., p. 248. 

50 “Ursachen warumb es beschwerlich sey, die drey maler 
hie In der Statt zu gedulden.” (Jbid., p. et seq.) This is 
written in the hand of Spengler but drawn up very evidently 
by the theologians. (Jbid., p. 249, note.) Si’ 1bid., Pp, 249. 


go RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


considered the revolt against the civil power as 
serious enough to be worth mentioning — at least 
no record of their having discussed the point has 
been preserved.*? . 

This argument is further strengthened by other 
direct testimony. Scheurl, who was one of the ju- 
rists called upon to assist in the examination, wrote 
on 22 January to a friend in Genoa. In this letter 
he makes the following statement: ‘“ Everything is 
quiet here in Germany except that the followers of 
Karlstadt are increasing. These deny that the body 
of Christ is in the host and combat the baptism of 
infants. They destroy the images and interpret 
Scripture for themselves. But this poison is no 
longer being spread abroad among us; three paint- 
ers have been thrown into jail.” °* It is significant 
that Scheurl says not a word about their denial of 
the civil power. The documents relating to the 
trial are docketed in a contemporary hand, thus: 
“Investigation and examination instituted by the 
Council in the case of the brothers Sebald and 
Barthel Behaim and Georg Pentz, painters, and 
several other persons, in matters concerning our 
holy faith; and the answers given to the same. For 
this reason the two Behaims and Pentz were placed 
in prison.” ** Here again the writer considers that 


BDI ps, 248. 

53 Scheurl, Briefbuch II, p. 132. The fact that Karlstadt 
had been banished from Saxony would probably tend to jus- 
tify, in the eyes of the orthodox Evangelicals, the banishment 
of his followers from Nuremberg. 

54 Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “ drei gottlosen 
Maler,” p. 243, note 2. 


Pas COAS BI WITROAUE HORTA WY OI 


it is entirely a question of “holy faith.” And 
Melanchthon, referring to this incident some years 
later, says that the painters were banished because 
they voiced erroneous religious beliefs; °° and he 
commends the Council for such action. 

It is well not to minimize unduly the question of 
sedition. There was much social unrest in Nurem- 
berg at this time. There was a general disregard 
of law and order attendant upon the upsetting of 
established religious custom.°® ‘The peasant upris- 
ings which were just beginning to agitate the 
Swabian and Franconian lands were doubtless in- 
creasing the anxiety of the Council to guard against 
anything that had the slightest appearance of radi- 
cal disturbance. State and Church were not then 
such separate entities as we have come to consider 
them; their functions were by no means so clearly 
defined, the limits of state jurisdiction not so care- 
fully marked out. The theologians were quite cer- 
tain that the teaching of religious doctrines other 
than those authorized would inevitably lead to sedi- 
tion.’ But after making all due allowance it seems 
just to insist upon the point here taken. There are 
those who would maintain that Lutheran states at- 

55 Prolegomena in officia Ciceronis, C. R. XVI, c. 572. 
Melanchthon is here maintaining that faith should be free, 
but that the outward expression of that faith should be con- 
trolled by the civil power. As he wrote this in 1546 his 
ideas may have been much colored by later theories. Too much 
weight may not be given it. Cf. Keller, Staupitz, p. 237. 

56 Cf. Kolde, p. 51 et seg; Janssen II, p. 350 et sqq. 


57 Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “ drei gottlosen 
Maler,” p. 248. 


Q2 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


tacked radicalism not at all in defense of religion, 
but in maintenance of their own existence as po- 
litical states.°* Such a stand is contradicted by the 
considerations enumerated above. 

A further examination of the evidence will re- 
veal other factors. In every case the theologians 
not only discussed the doctrinal points at issue, but 
suggested the action to be taken by the Council. 
Osiander in his statement regarding Greiffenberger 
advised that, since he was ready to be instructed, 
it would be better to allow him to go unpunished 
than for the civil authorities to take action in such 
a matter.°° As we have already seen, his advice 
was followed by the Council. In the case of Denck 
it was the theologians who not only advised drastic 
action but strongly urged it upon the Council. It 
is the duty of the Council, they said, by virtue of 
its office and because of its responsibility for the 
welfare of the community to take effective meas- 
ures to halt the spread of this poisonous error. 


°8 Kawerau, in reviewing Wappler’s works in the Deutsche 
Literatur-Zeitung, insists that the civil power acted against the 
“Anabaptists ” only in self-protection, not because the Church 
demanded it or Luther taught it. (Issue of 28 Nov., 1914.) 

59 “Nun dieweil nicht allein als kunftig zu besorgen sondern 
auch schon vor augen ist, das ander mer in solchen irthumb 
kommen bedenkt mich besser, soferne E.w. Rhat nicht ander 
ursach wider in hett, das man in (doch bessers rhats unverziehen) 
seiner besserung geniessen liesz, dan es mocht uns einer der also 
geirret und doch von hertzen widerkeret, nutzer sein zum ex- 
empel solcher irrthumb, dann zehen die darin beharreten, und 
von der obrigkeit gestraft wurden.” (Kolde, App. Hs pow 

Oe CTU ADOVEL (Dy or. 


Dee CLASH WITH AUTHORITY 93 


What these measures should be the Council was 
left to decide. But that body seems to have been 
in little doubt as to the course which it should pur- 
sue. What was evidently in the minds of the 
preachers at that time is made clear in the trial of 
the painters. Here the theologians asked not merely 
that some action be taken, they demanded very 
definite action for a very definite offense. These 
men were guilty of the most fearful blasphemy.” 
For this reason they were to be expelled from the 
Church, and their banishment was urged upon the 
Council. It is true that for centuries blasphemy 
had been a crime punishable by civil authorities. 
The jurists pointed out that imperial law gave the 
right to punish, but they were not prepared to 
make use of it in this case. Furthermore, the crime 
of these painters was much more nearly heresy for 
which, Luther taught, there should be no civil pen- 


61“ | | wiie abtriinige oder gotsverlaugner sint....” “Nu 
haben dise maler iren irthumb . . . ausgegossen, das mit eynem 
triitz beharret, und Gott und sein wort veracht (?) also die 
hohst gotslesterung geubt.. . .” (Zum Prozess des Johann Denck 
und der “drei gottlosen Maler,” p. 247.) 

62 Nun hab die kirch, das ist die versamlung bey der apostel 
zeiten, so eyner apostatirt, inen auch nit sogleich wider ange- 
nomen, sonder ein zeitlang aus der gemeyn gelassen und gesehen, 
wie er sich gehalten. Dieweil dann bey disem, wue dise person 
in der stat pleiben solten, vil ubels mag kumen, und sie doch 
draussen auch so wol, als hie entweder in besserung oder aber 
uff verhertung ine straff kiimen mogen, rathen sy, die theologen, 
einmiitiglich, das ein erber rath ir straff nit dahinden lassen; 
dann, ob sich eyner bekene, hab er die kirchen wol genug 
gethan, damit hab er aber dannocht die oberkeit nit bezalt und 
darumb soll man sy der stat verweysen....” (Jbid., p. 248). 


04 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


alty. Luther was appealed to in the case under 
discussion and replied that he did not consider the 
painters blasphemers, but rather Turks or apos- 
tate Christians with whom the civil power had noth- 
ing to do.** But the theologians of Nuremberg 
had given the word a wider content than Luther 
was yet ready to give it. It was to maintain 
purity of faith and to guard the community from 
error that the Council was to take action. Here, 
then, the theologians definitely called upon the civil 
magistrates to act in the service of religion, naming 
the crime and prescribing the punishment. 

This is the first instance in which the civil power 
was called upon to protect the Evangelical faith 
on the ground that it was the duty of the state to 
guard against the spread of error.®** Its significance 


6?) Luther..to ‘Spengler,'4.Feb., ‘1s25,) | (Enders,. 5. pane 
This question of blasphemy, as the crime for which the sec- 
taries were put out of the way by the civil power, will be 
discussed in its broader aspects in the following chapter. 

64 Miinzer and Karlstadt had been driven out of Saxony a 
few months earlier than this. But the charge against them was 
incitement to sedition rather than erroneous doctrine. In his 
Brief an den Fiirsten zu Sachsen von dem aufriihrischen Geist 
(W. A., 15, 211 et sqg.) Luther urges (212 et seq.) that his. 
princes should give careful consideration to this matter and 
by virtue of their duty as wielders of “ordentlicher Gewalt ” 
should guard against such disorder and put a stop to sedition. 
But he urges in the same letter that in the realm of the spirit, 
in matters that concern religious teaching, the civil power must 
not enter. Let them preach as they will and against whom 
they will, The Word of God must contend here (p. 218). 
In a letter of 27 Sept. (Enders, 5, p. 26), he advises that 
Karlstadt be removed from Orlamiinde and the Saale Valley, 
but here again he assumes to be contending against sedition, 


TLHEMOLAS AW iLDAH AU THOR TTY 95 


is therefore great. The immediate effect in Nurem- 
berg was to make evident the need of a more defi- 
nite organization of reform.** The Council pro- 
vided that early in March a conference should be 
held at which the two parties— Catholics and 
Lutherans — might uphold their respective faiths 


The distinction is, however, very close. Luther could also em- 
ploy force to abolish the Catholic mass at Wittenberg, but 
that is “ordentliche Gewalt” (W. A., 18, p. 22). For the 
whole question, which has been the occasion of much contro- 
versy, see Barge, Karlstadt, II, chap. IX. On p. 38 he says: 
“Bin erstes Mal wurde zum Schutze der reinen Lehre die 
Polizeigewalt mobil gemacht.” Wappler (Téauferbewegung in 
Thiiringen, p. 13) follows him in this. Miiller in his Luther 
und Karlstadt (chap. V1) takes issue with this point of view, 
insisting that it is for sedition and not on the ground of wrong 
teaching that Luther would have the latter proceeded against. 
On the whole, I think he makes his point, though I agree 
with Kohler, who reviews the controversy in the Godttingische 
gelehrte Anzeigen (1912, no. 9), that it is very finely drawn. 
It is chiefly a distinction without a difference and is of im- 
portance only in the discussion of Luther’s developing theory 
of persecution. 

While these events were transpiring at Nuremberg, the Coun- 
cil at Ziirich decreed banishment as the penalty for refusal to 
have infants baptized. (Egli, Aktenstiicke, no, 622, 18 Jan., 
1525.) But no action was taken against the “ Anabaptists”’ 
till some time later. (Cf. Burrage, The Anabaptists in Switzer- 
land.) 

65 See letter of Council to John Poliander, 25 Feb., 1525. 
Complaint is there made of the “allerley ungleicher predig — 
aus dem bey unserer gemein sich taglich unschickligkeitten und 
Irrungen im gewissen ereugen wollen, und alls zu besorgen von 
tagen zu tagen noch mehr erweittern méchten, derhalben wir 
auch christennlicher gutter maynung und aus verpflichtung 
unnser oberkeit unnd ambts furgenommen haben, die predicanten 
in solchen iren predigen sovil moglich zuverainigen und dem 
unfall so vermutlich hieraus volgen mag stattlich zu begegnen.” 
Pub. by Schornbaum in B. B. K. G., 6, p. 225. 


96 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


in debate. It then declared that the Evangelical 
party had won. The break with the old Church 
was now made complete and final. From this time 
on unity, in the outward confession of faith at 
least, was to be enforced; and Luther, writing to 
his prince in February of the following year, could 
cite the example of Nuremberg in behalf of his 
claim that it is the duty of a prince to see to it 
that in his domains but one single faith is propa- 
gated.°° In this Nuremberg anticipated the action 
later to become general in all Lutheran lands. One 
sees here the beginning of the well-known principle 
— cuius regio, eius religio. 

These trials were pregnant with meaning also for 
the later history of the sects. Though Denck was 
guilty of no revolt against the civil power, the re- 
port was quickly disseminated that he had taught 
sedition and was for this reason banished from 
Nuremberg.*’ The more revolutionary theories of 
the painters became noised about and these were 
ascribed to Denck.** The incident would probably 

66 Erlangen, 53, p. 368. The Council immediately assumed 
the prerogative of appointing pastors. They, therefore, had an 
effective means at hand for maintaining unity of faith. 

67 Letter of Denck to the Council of Augsburg. Pub. in 
Keller, Ein Apostel de Wiedertéufer, p. 250. Denck did Jater 
come to the more common “ Anabaptist ”’ view regarding the 
civil power as documents edited by Schwabe in Z. K. G., vol. 
12, p. 477 et sqq., show. But even in these utterances Denck 
takes much the same stand as did Luther in his Von weltlicher 
Obrigkeit. 


68 Luther to Brisman, 4 Feb., 1525. (Enders, 5, p. 118.) 
Capito to Zwingli, 5 Feb., 1525. (C. R. XCV, p. 302.) 


NHE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY 97 


have been forgotten had it not been for the promi- 
nent part which he played in the later development 
of the whole sectarian movement. He was known 
as the “ bishop ” of the ‘“‘ Anabaptists.” ©? And as 
the news spread that he was propagating seditious 
and revolutionary views, the majority saw in all 
propaganda in opposition to the state’s religion an 
attack upon the state itself." This idea, once in 
the minds of men in authority, was greatly fur- 
thered by the peasants’ revolt and the rapid spread 
of the ‘“ Anabaptist” movement during the years 
1526 and 1527. All dissent, were it never so harm- 
less, came to be connected with revolt against civil 
authority. Sectaries were seditious folk preaching 
bloodshed, the overthrowing of all government, the 
sweeping away of the whole social, political, and 
religious structure of society. And as the narrow- 
ing and hardening of Lutheranism drove an increas- 
ing number into opposition, it became the professed 
duty of the state to hunt them down as outlaws. 


69 Franck, Geschichtsbibel, p. cccxi (a). 
70 Keller, Staupitz, p. 237 and passim. 


CHAPTER IV 
LUTHER AND DISSENT 


THE ideas of Hans Denck, in their general pur- 
port as least, seem much more nearly akin to 
the earlier utterances of Luther than do those of 
the Lutheran theologians who demanded his expul- 
sion from Nuremberg. But the Wittenberg master, 
too, had changed since the first years of his re- 
volt, and since he played such a dominant réle in 
the Evangelical movement it seems pertinent, for 
the elucidation of our problem, to follow in some 
detail the development of his thought regarding 
dissent. 

In discussing Luther’s theory certain considera- 
tions must be borne constantly in mind — his con- 
ception of the absolute oneness of truth, his belief 
in exclusive salvation, his reverence for authority, 
and the external conditions of his revolt. It is im- 
possible to understand utterances which seem quite 
contradictory until one attempts to approach, from 
his point of view, the problems which he faced. 
For Luther, from the beginning to the end of his 
revolt, believed that truth was revealed by God 
through the pages of a sacred book and therefore 
fixed for all time; he insisted that the Holy Spirit, 

98 


LUTHER AND DISSENT 99 


who interprets to men the Word of God through 
Scripture, gives but one interpretation. Granting 
these premises there was no possibility of two men 
disagreeing honestly over a question of faith. To 
presume to differ from the dictates of authority 
was to him unthinkable — provided that authority 
was of God and not of Satan. From the Bible and 
from the early Fathers one could learn the will of 
God, all else was simply idle tradition of men. 
Greater, said Augustine, is the authority of a single 
Scripture than all the powers of the human reason.’ 

Starting with the premises from which Luther 
started, there is no choice but to demand tolerance 
for oneself and one’s own beliefs, while at the same 
time demanding repression of all that is antagonis- 
tic to that viewpoint. Augustine, Luther’s great 
master, had frankly held that the duty of the non- 
Christian ruler is tolerance, the duty of the Chris- 
tian ruler intolerance.” And nowhere did Luther, 
in his reasoned thought, ever advance beyond this 
viewpoint, much as his theory as to the means to 
be employed may have changed. It is necessary, 
therefore, in reading his utterances regarding re- 
pression always carefully to note which way he is 
facing. It is impious persecution to repress one 
who holds to the true Word of God; it is fulfilling 

1 Ponders, 3.) p. 132 (28 -Apr., 1521). 

2 See his answer to Petilian, the Donatist, and his treatise 
on the correction of the Donatists. Tr. by J. R. King in 


Schafi’s Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. LV, pp. 584, 635, 
638, 642, 644. 


I0O RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


one’s high duty to God to put down that which is 
contrary to that Word.° 

The circumstances of Luther’s revolt brought 
him immediately into opposition to all the then 
existing external authority, both of Church and 
State. But only-reluctantly and step by step did 
he break with institutions for centuries revered. 
It was dissatisfaction with his life and the means 
of salvation offered him by the Church that drove 
him to a fresh study of the Scriptures from which 
he evolved his theory of justification by faith alone 
— a theory which soon brought him into sharp con- 
flict with the Catholic hierarchy over the question 
of indulgences. Not until strife with papal legate 
and papal champion at Augsburg and at Leipzig 
showed him that he was hopelessly at variance with 
the leaders and dogmas of the Church, did he go 
into definite opposition. From a corrupt curia he 
appealed to the Pope, from the Pope ill informed to 
the Pope to be better informed, from the Pope to 
a Council, from the Council to the Word of God. 
Always as the defender of God’s truth against 
abuse, error and false assumption, did he fight; 
always did he appear to himself, and to a great 
mass of the German people, as an upholder of the 
old faith, a champion of the pure apostolic Church. 
And when, in the “bonfire of Wittenberg,” he 
burned papal bull and books of canon law, it was 


3 Letter to the “Propst, Domherren und Capitel in Witten- 
berg,” 19 Aug., 1523. (Enders, 4, p. 210.) 


LUTHER AND DISSENT IOI 


not as a revolutionist but as a restorer of that which 
was old, a destroyer of the assumptions based upon 
false human traditions, that he stood before the 
world. He took his stand firmly upon the Word 
of God bound within the covers of a sacred book. 
In this he had the sense of absolute certainty that 
he was right. 


“With what pains and labor, grounded ever in Holy 
Writ, have I succeeded in justifying my own conscience 
for presuming to stand out alone against the Pope, to 
hold him up as Antichrist, the bishops as his apostles, 
and the universities as his brothels. How often has 
my heart failed me, plagued me, cast up at me its one 
strongest argument— are you alone wise? Have all 
others erred this long while? What if you are wrong 
and are leading so many people off into the same error 
to be eternally damned? Finally, however, Christ 
strengthened me with his own true Word and confirmed 
me, so that my heart no longer racked me. But, as a 
rocky coast hurls back the breakers, it resisted these 
arguments of the papists and mocked their threats and 
assaults.” 4 


He had his commission not from men but directly 
from God. 

“Your worshipful Highness the Elector knows, or if 
he does not know, let it be hereby declared to him, that 
I have the gospel, not from men, but only from Heaven 
through our Lord Jesus Christ, so that I might very 
well have gloried in being, and written myself down as 


* Letter to Augustinians at Wittenberg, Nov., 1521. (Erlangen, 
53, PP. 93 et seq.) 


102 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


a servant and evangelist, which I mean henceforth to 
doz? 

Luther would be no heretic. ‘I offer every con- 
dition of peace,” he wrote his friend Spalatin in 
1520, “except that I will not recant, suffer the 
stigma of heresy; or give up the freedom of teach- 
ing the Word.”’® The Church had, in fact, never 
punished heretics. Those whom she had punished 
were saintly men.’ Hus was burned at the stake, 
and yet we are all Hussites without knowing it — 
Staupitz, Augustine, even Paul himself. The true 
evangel has been openly and publicly burned this 
hundred years.® A heretic is “ one who refuses to 
believe what is necessary and that which he is 


5 Quoted from Harnack, History of Dogma, VII, p. 172, note. 
This sureness of the absolute rightness of his position was shared 
by his followers. An interesting instance of this is found in the 
report of Erasmus Alberus regarding the conversion of Cellarius 
from Zwinglianism to Lutheranism. Cellarius had heard 
(Ecolampadius pray “if our teaching is true.” No Christian 
should so doubt his own faith, said Cellarius. Rather should 
he say, “ Lord God, thou knowest that I preach thy Word and 
do not uphold false teaching.” Cellarius, therefore, changed to’ 
Lutheranism, where he might be certain of his ground. (Enders, 
2, p. 58, note 3.) The same certainty is seen in the “ Protest ” 
drawn up by the Evangelical states at the second Diet of 
Spires, 1529. They there insist that their faith is certain, 
being grounded upon the Word of God, while that of the 
Catholic party is built upon mere human tradition. Cf. letter 
to the Elector, 7 Mar., 1522 (Erlangen, 53, p. 110): “ Denn 
ich weiss das mein wort und anfang nicht aus mir, sondern 
aus Gott ist, das mir kein Tod noch Verfolgung anders lehren 
wird, mich diinkt auch, man werde es miissen lassen bleiben.” 

6 Enders, 2, p. 464 (23 Aug. 1520). 

7 Cf. Kohler, Reformation und Ketzerprozess, p. 9. 

8 Letter to Spalatin, Feb., 1520. (Enders, 2, p. 345.) 


LUTHER AND DISSENT 103 


bidden to believe.” ° But what is it that one must 
believe? It is the Word of God.*® The world can 
do no more than taunt us as heretics and unbe- 
lievers; it cannot make us heretics. When we build 
on the Word of God we may stand unshaken, con- 
fident in our rightness..* The Word makes gods 
of men as Jesus taught (John 10:35), and David 
also (Ps. 82); one who believes on that cannot go 
astray.” 

The will of God will be perfectly plain to every 
honest man as soon as he has it brought properly 
to his attention. It is absurd to try by physical 
force to compel conformity to a certain set of dog- 
mas. Heretics are to be overcome with books, 
not by force, else would the executioner be the 
most learned doctor of all.** It is interesting to 
note that Luther had not always thought thus. Be- 
fore he broke with the Church he had openly ad- 
vocated the suppression of heresy by force. But 
the exigencies of his revolt tended rather swiiftly 
to modify this view. Discussing the 14th chapter 
of Luke in a sermon of the year 1522, he comments 
on the passage, ‘‘ Compel them to enter in.” What 
is meant, he asks, by compulsion in this case? It is 
to be understood in the sense of going to an erring 


POW AT D.30T: 

10 Enders, 3, p. I4I. 

11 Erlangen, 53, p. 94 (25 Nov., 1521). 

12 Tbtd., PD. 121 (Mar., 1522). 

13 Address to the German Nobility, from the translation in 
Wace and Buchheim, p. 75. 


104 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


brother, comforting him with the gospel, and telling 
him how he may become free from his sins through 
belief in Christ. ‘‘ That is the meaning of com- 
pelle intrare. It is not to be understood in the 
sense of outward compulsion, as it is ordinarily 
interpreted and as J also have done, by which one 
drives knaves and evildoers by force. For that 
does no good and is also not the meaning of the 
gospel.” Therefore one should deal with heresy as 
a matter of conscience.** One cannot guard against 
it by force. “It is a spiritual thing which one 
cannot cut with iron, burn with fire, or drown with 
water.” God’s Word must contend here, and when 
that can do nothing the civil power can do no good, 
though it fill the world with blood.” 

The single rule that may be applied in the case 
of spiritual offenses is that laid down by Jesus in 
Matt. 18:15-17. First talk the matter over with 
an offending brother; if he refuses to listen to you, 
take it to the community of true believers, and if 
he refuses to be guided by them “ let him be unto 
thee as a heathen and a publican.” ** ‘This does 
not mean that Luther had become any more toler- 
ant. Heresy was to him still the deadliest of sins 

14 Burr, p. 720, note 7. The quotation is from W. A., 12, 
pp. 600 et seg. The sermon is here dated 14 June, 1523, but 
the editor, Pietsch, later corrects the date, holding that it must 
have been delivered in 1522. (See W. A., 11, p. 131.) 

15 Von weltlicher Obrigkeit (1523), W. A., 11, p. 268. 

16: Die deutsche Messe (1526), W.-A., 19, p. 75. Cfo Wane 


pler, Inquisition und Ketzerprozess in Zwickau zur Reforma- 
tionszeit, p. 3. 


LUTHER AND DISSENT TO5 


and any infraction of the laws of God merited swift 
punishment.*’ It was, however, a thing too subtle 
to be dealt with by temporal weapons. 

But, though his fundamental theory of revealed 
truth and exclusive salvation was essentially intol- 
erant, his early enthusiasm and belief in human 
nature obscured for a time its real character. He 
was sure that all men would come to see the truth 
as he did. The stirring appeal in his Address to 
the German Nobility and in his essay on Christian 
Liberty, both written in 1520, seemed like the dawn- 
ing of a new age. His claim that “we are all 
priests . . . and have all one faith, one gospel, one 
sacrament,” and therefore have the power of dis- 
cerning and judging right and wrong in matters of 
faith, sounded like a clarion call summoning all 
men to exercise the rights of the individual con- 
science.* His stand at Worms seemed to place the 
final capstone on the structure of liberty of con- 
science, in process of erection now these two hun- 
dred years. 

But Luther demanded only freedom of conscience 
bound by the Word of God — for he knew no free- 


17 See his letter to Melanchthon, 9 Sept., 1521, in which he 
discusses the unpardonable sin. This, he thinks, is quite prob- 
ably heresy. (Enders, 3, p. 227.) And see also his letter to 
the Chapter at Wittenberg cited above (note 4, p. Ioz) in 
which he says it is one thing to show tolerance toward the 
infirm in matters of no importance and a vastly different thing 
in important matters. In the latter case it is impious to be 
tolerant. 

18 Address to the German Nobility, Wace and Buchheim, 
Dp: 27. 


106 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


dom else. This was the authority which he sub- 
stituted for that of the Church. The Word of God 
may be found in Scripture as interpreted by the 
Holy Spirit, “that all-simplest writer,” who gives 
but one interpretation.’® Since this is true, it is 
unthinkable that anyone who honestly seeks the 
truth could arrive at any conclusions other than 
he has reached. All have the power of judging and 
should be restrained by no external authority, he 
said in 1520.7? When, in 1522, the monastic 
foundation at Altenburg was opposing the installa- 
tion of an Evangelical pastor in the parish in which 
it held the right of advowson, he insisted that it 
could not properly exercise any control over the 
community. It is for the latter to decide what is 
true teaching and to choose its own pastor. “If 
they (the members of the Chapter) try to say it 
is not proper for us to judge what is gospel truth 
on matters which have not been decided by a coun- 
cil, we will not grant their contention; for the Scrip- 
ture gives not to a council, but to every Christian 
(I Cor. 14) the power to judge teaching, and to 
know and avoid the wolves (Matt. 7). It is not 
a question of what others decide, though they be 
angels. For each must believe for himself and 
know how to judge between true and false teach- 
ing.” 21 

19 Auf das tiberchristlich, tibergeistlich und wiberkiinstlich Buch 
Bocks Emsers zu Leipzig Antwort (1521). W.A., 7, p. 670. 


20 Address to the German Nobility, p. 27. 
#1. Enders, 3, pp. 348. e¢ seq. (28 Apr., 1522), 


LUTHER AND DISSENT 107 


Such a position served admirably so long as 
Luther’s assurance that all men would come to be- 
lieve just as he did, were they but shown the right 
way, remained unshaken. But when that assur- 
ance was undermined, some theory by which men 
could be compelled to conform to the true faith, in 
outward worship at least, became necessary. The 
belief in exclusive salvation furnished the basis; 
his responsibility as the leader of the body of true 
believers afforded the occasion. He had always 
contended that all must fight against the abuses 
of the Roman hierarchy. No obedience to that au- 
thority was required for it could kill the soul as 
well as the body.” In his Address to the German 
Nobility he had called upon the princes to sweep 
away abuses in the Church. But their power was 
to end here; no positive task of organization was 
to be theirs. Such authority was to rest in the 
community of true believers. To the individual 
’ was to be given the right of judging between truth 
and falsehood; to the community, the right of con- 
trolling Christian worship.”° 

Luther in his belief in the competence of the in- 
dividual to judge in matters of faith was to meet 
swift disappointment. Men proved to be stubborn 


22 See, for example, his letter to the Wittenbergers, Dec., 
rs21. (Erlangen, 53, pp. 101 et seq.) 

23 He develops this thought in the essay, Dass ein christliche 
Versammlung oder Gemeine Recht und Macht habe, alle Lehre 
zu urtheilen und Lehrer zu berufen, ein und abzusetzen, Grund 
und Ursach aus der Schrift. (W. A., 11, pp. 408 et sqq.) 


108 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


and perverse; they were either unable or unwilling 
to see the truth. Early in 1522 he was called upon 
to meet a group who seemed earnest, and who ap- 
parently in all honesty thought they had a truth 
different from his. They thought that God spoke 
to them directly and thus revealed to them truths 
not contained in the Bible. These “ prophets ” 
came from Zwickau to Wittenberg and began voic- 
ing their prophetic utterances during the time that 
Luther was in hiding at the Wartburg. Greatly 
stirred, Luther, despite the injunctions of his prince, 
left his castle retreat and came to Wittenberg. 
After talking with the so-called prophets he quickly 
concluded that the spirit which motivated them was 
of Satan rather than of God. But mere certainty — 
that they were wrong did not assure against the 
evil consequences of propaganda such as they were 
carrying on. People were being led astray, even 
from among his own followers at Wittenberg. 
Melanchthon was somewhat shaken; Karlstadt was 
swept completely off his feet. Down at Allstedt 
during the following year Miinzer began to make 
trouble. There was growing danger from those 
who appealed, as did he, to the Word of God, but 
who had differing notions of that concept and dif- 
fering interpretations of Scripture. The need of 
some fixed standard, of a norm by which men might 
know that they had the true faith, became increas- 
ingly apparent. Gradually, therefore, under the 
stress of attack from those who desired to carry 


LUTHER AND DISSENT 109 


to greater lengths the revolt from authority, Luther 
shifted his ground. From the idea of the Word of 
God in Scripture, interpreted to the individual by 
the Holy Ghost, he came, by 1525, to look upon 
Scripture as the Word of God. Faith in God came 
to mean substantially the acceptance of Luther’s 
interpretation of the Bible. 

With the erection of this external criterion of 
faith Luther turned inevitably to some power com- 
petent to unite discordant forces and bring unity 
and stability to his work. But where should he 
find this authority? The power of the ecclesiasti- 
cal hierarchy he had shattered by his theory of the 
priesthood of all believers.” To the civil authori- 
ties he would, as we have seen, grant a negative 
power to suppress abuses, but none to compel uni- 
formity. When dissent first began to raise its 
head, he maintained that the prince should not 
interfere. He was greatly exercised for fear that 
the Elector would, in his impatience, take drastic 
measures to quell the disturbances aroused by the 
7wickaus prophets,? “! See to wit,’ he, wrote 
Spalatin, “that our prince does not soil his hands 


24 Vom Greuel der Stillmesse, W. A., 18, p. 23: “ Aber zum 
ersten will ich synem iglichen des grunds erynnern, darauff 
unser glaube und alles, was wyr predigen, stehet, und denselben 
kurtzlich widderhalen. Ich predige aber itzt nur denen, die 
das Evangelion fur gottes wort und nicht andere halten, denn 
die noch dran zwayffeln oder nicht wissen, nemen solchen grund 
nicht an.” Cf. also Jones, Spiritual Reformers in the 16th and 
r7th Centuries, p. 12. 

25 Clearly expressed in his pamphlet of the year 1520, On 
Christian Liberty. 


Ito RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


in the blood of these new Zwickau prophets.” *° 
A few weeks later he wrote to the Elector himself 
with reference to the same disturbance. “The 
gospel,” he says, “‘ has won a strong hold upon the 
common man. ... But he does not know how to 
make proper use of it.” It is useless, however, 
to attempt to employ force; it would merely cause 
bitterness and sedition. “I have recently learned 
that not only the ecclesiastical power but the civil 
power as well must give way before the gospel.” 27 

The following year Luther published a careful 
work on the province of the civil power, indicating 
clearly over what sphere it was competent, in his 
judgment, to rule.*® In this treatise he begins by 
laying down as a fundamental tenet the theory that 
the civil power is ordained of God and that every 
one should obey it.*® But there are two classes of 
people in the world —the worldly and the other- 
worldly. The latter, since they belong to the king- 
dom of God over which Christ is lord, need no 
earthly law or temporal rulers. If all the people 
in the world were good Christians, there would be 
no need of prince, king, sword, or law. One might 


26 Enders, 3, p. 286 (17 Jan., 1422). 

27 Erlangen, 53, p. 111, (7 Mar., 1522). 

28 Von weltlicher Obrigkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam 
schuldig sei. W. A., 11, pp. 248-280. One must remember in 
reading this that Luther was not a political theorist but a 
theologian. It is well also to recall that he was just at this 
time much incensed because of the activity of some states in 
suppressing his writings. 

4° SDI LE DeeA ys 


LUTHER AND DISSENT Aa 97 


as well pass laws that apple trees should bear apples 
rather than thorns as to decree that a Christian 
should do right.*° Why then have laws? Because 
of the evil men in the world who will not do right 
except under compulsion. And since we are all 
children of sin, all need law and all should be obedi- 
ent to the law. Else would some, under the cloak 
of needing no law, practice all sorts of knavery.” 

“One must distinguish carefully between the 
two powers [the spiritual and the temporal] and 
must maintain both—the one that works for 
righteousness, the other that maintains peace and 
guards against evil deeds. Neither is sufficient 
without the other. For without Christ’s spiritual 
power no one can become right with God through 
the earthly power. Likewise Christ’s rule does not 
extend over all men. At all times the Christians 
are in the minority, and are mingled with the non- 
Christians.” It is, therefore, to be concluded that 
both powers are necessary and complementary; the 
one ruling the spirit, the other the external life of 
man.*” 

But the civil power must see to it that it does 
not attempt to overstep its proper limits and tres- 

30 Tbid., pp. 249 et seq. This passage is of much interest 
in connection with the sectaries, against whom one of the chief 
charges was that they considered the civil power unnecessary, 
but said all men should obey it even though they were Chris- 
tian. They, however, went further than Luther in that they 
maintained no Christian should hold office. 


31 [bid., pp. 250 et seq. 
82 Tbid., p. 252. 


Td RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


pass upon the powers and prerogatives belonging 
to God. “The worldly power has laws that reach 
no further than over one’s body and property, and 
those things which are external. For over the soul 
God can and will allow no one but Himself to rule. 
Therefore when the civil power assumes to make 
laws for the soul,-in such cases it trespasses upon 
God’s power and merely leads astray and kills the 
SOUL aes 

Into the province of the spirit, then, the civil 
power must not enter. It has its function which 
is a very high and necessary one. It is ordained 
of God to maintain peace and order. It is not the 
handmaiden of the spiritual authority to punish the 
violations of its laws. The two realms are distinct; 
they have bounds which must not be crossed. 

To this idea Luther clung even after the radicals, 
especially Muinzer, had caused no little trouble and 
heart-burning, not only for Luther but for his 
princes as well. Duke John Frederick wrote to 
him 24 June, 1524, complaining of the fanatics and 
urging Luther to make a tour of visitation through 
Thuringia in an attempt to quiet the disturbances. 
Such preachers as he found to be instilling radical 
and seditious doctrines he should, with the aid of 
the civil power, displace.** To this Luther replied 
in Ein Brief an die Fiirsten zu Sachsen von dem 
aufruhrischen Geist.*° It has always been the rule, 


38 Tbid., p. 262. 
4 Enders, 4.00, 09695 
8° W. A., 15, pp. 210-221. Also in Erlangen, 53, DP. 225- 


LUTHER AND DISSENT 113 


he says, when the Word of God waxes strong, for 
Satan to strive against it with all his power, at first 
with fists and violence, later by a false tongue and 
erroneous teaching. Thus he filled the world full 
of sects and heretics. ‘This is unavoidable. In so 
far as they stir up sedition and attempt anything 
against the civil power — and that seems to be their 
purpose — it is the duty of the magistrate to guard 
carefully against their machinations.**° But in so far 
as teaching is concerned, it is not for the civil power 
to intervene in behalf of God’s Word. ‘ Let them 
just preach confidently and vigorously whatever 
they may and against whom they will. For, as I 
said above, there must be sects. The Word must 
take the field and do battle. ... If their spirit 
is true, it will not be afraid of us and will persist; 
if ours is true, it will not need to fear them or any- 
one else. Simply let the spirits fight it out among 
themselves. If a few are led astray thereby, what 
of it? So it goes in war. Where a fight is on some 
must always be wounded and fall.” *’ If they per- 
sist in seditious acts, they should be expelled from 
the territory. ‘“ But I pray you that you give 
careful consideration to this fanaticism, that, as 
befits Christians, these matters may be settled by 


268. The latter dates this letter, 21 August, but it must have 
been written the latter part of July. See Enders, 4, p. 373, note 
1 and Introduction in W. A., 15. 

86 Jbid., p. 212 et seq. 

87 Ibid., pp. 218 et seq. 

$8) Ibid.) Dato. 


IIt4 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


the Word of God alone, and that cause of sedition, 
for which Mr. Everybody [Herr Omnes] is all too 
ready, may be guarded against.” *° 

But already another spirit was striving in Luther. 
During the years 1523-1524 he was in a continual 
wrangle with the canons at Wittenberg, chiefly over 
the question of private masses. He threatened and 
bullied them; they appealed to the Elector. Luther 
told them that the prince had no authority in such 
cases.*° The Elector thought otherwise and at- 
tempted to secure some compromise by which peace 
might be established.‘ Luther insisted that no 
pressure could force him to cease preaching against 
private masses, but that he would give no cause for 
tumult or disturbance; it was not his intention to 
employ force.*” Finally, however, his conscience 
would not permit him to allow such “ idolatrous ” 
rites to be longer observed; ** so, despite his previ- 
ous assurances to the Duke, he got his Wittenberg 
followers together and put a stop to them by force.*# 

His action raised much protest. The Catholics 
accused him of sedition, and Luther found himself 
hard pressed to justify his action. This he did in 
his work Vom Greuel der Stillmesse. The Papists, 


39 Ibid., pp. 220 et seq. 

#0 Erlangen, §3,'p. 170. 

*t Enders, 5, p. 54, note; C. R., Ly ¢..610 ef Sqq. 

42 Enders, 4, p. 208. 

#8 Erlangen, 53, p. 178. Cf. also p. 270. 

44 In the Introduction to Vom Greuel der Stillmesse (W. A., 
18, pp. 8 et sgq.) the sources for this whole incident are care- 
fully reviewed. Cf. Burr, Anent the Middle Ages.) pavgaa. 


LUTHER AND DISSENT I15 


he said, accused him of raising sedition, but such 
charges are to be expected from people who blas- 
pheme God with their masses and idolatry. “I 
consider it no sedition when one takes cognizance 
of and rights something by a proper use of 
force.” *° These people could easily have learned 
better, had they not closed their ears to all true 
teaching. They were mingling with the true be- 
lievers in Wittenberg, and as a result, according to 
the teachings of Paul (Rom. 1:32), their sin would 
be visited upon the whole community should they 
be allowed to persist in their blasphemous prac- 
tices.*° 

It is, therefore, according to Luther’s theory, 
necessary to employ force for the suppression of 
blasphemy and idolatry, that the judgment of God 
be not visited upon the community which permits 
them. Coercion is not, it must be clearly under- 
stood, to be applied by the hand of the prince. It 
seems rather to be an extension of the theory that 
the Christian community should purge itself by 
the expulsion of its wilful members. In this case 
it was the Evangelical community which drove out 
its Catholic opponents. From this position it is 
but a short step to the employment of force by the 


45 W. A., 18, p. 22. 

46 Tbid.. pp. 23 et seg. It is of interest to contrast this 
with his stand in an early debate with Cochleus at Worms. 
At that time he urged that wheat and tares should be per- 
mitted to grow up together. (Reported by Cochleus. Enders, 


ay)p..179.) 


Ir6 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


prince, as the chief member of the Christian com- 
munity, for the protection of the faithful in his 
territories. It was not long before that step was 
to be taken. 

The movement inaugurated by Luther had passed 
the irresponsible propagandist stage. He now found 
himself the responsible head of a great institution 
for which he must devise some sort of organiza- 
tion, if the gains already made were to be con- 
served and disintegrating forces suppressed. He 
must unite with forces powerful enough to aid him 
in combating both conservative and radical. For 
he was still a man of the Middle Ages in his no- 
tion of the Corpus Christi, one and _ indivisible. 
True, he had already caused a division in that body 
of Christ, but he always stoutly maintained that 
his was the true Church and had not ceased to 
hope that all men would see the truth as he saw 
it. He steadfastly clung to the idea of the unity 
of the Church and, when he saw that unity being 
endangered, he turned to the only power which he 
could command and invoked it against the forces 
that were threatening his system. The territo- 
rial prince was to become the guardian of unity 
and the protector of the faithful. Into his hands 
must be put weapons with which to perform his 
duty. 

Two events occurred which hastened this change. 
The peasants’ revolt destroyed in Luther the last 
vestige of faith in the “common man.” Grown 


LUTHER AND DISSENT II7 


skeptical of the latter’s ability to form self-con- 
trolling religious communities, he now became sure 
that organization must be from above. Just at 
this time also his cautious prince, Frederick, died 
and was followed on the electoral throne by his 
brother John. Less able than his brother, Duke ~ 
John was, however, far more active in support of 
Luther and his cause. Opportunity was thus of- 
fered for a more aggressive policy of reform. 
Luther was not slow to grasp the opportunity. 
It has been shown that, by the end of 1524, he 
was already prepared to employ ‘“ ordentlicher 
Gewalt ” for the suppression of the papal ‘“‘ blas- 
phemies and idolatries.’ But he was not then 
ready to call upon the prince for aid in such ac- 
tion. In April of the following year he urged in 
his Ermahnung zum Frieden auf die zwolf Artikel 
der Bauernschaft in Schwaben that “it is not the 
province of the civil power to prevent anyone 
teaching or believing as he wills, whether it be 
gospel truth or lies; it is sufficient if it prevent the 
teaching of sedition and tumult.” ** But since it 
became increasingly apparent that some central 
control was necessary to enforce uniformity in re- 
ligious teaching and practice, and since Luther was 
now able to count upon the active support of his 
prince, he evolved, during the summer and fall 
of 1525, a theory whereby the prince was made re- 
sponsible for the enforcement of the first as well 
47 W. A., 18, p. 209. 


118 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


as the second table of the Mosaic Law; man’s rela- 
tions to God as well as man’s relations with man 
were henceforth to be subject to his control. 

In a sermon on the second commandment, de- 
livered in October, Luther showed clearly in what 
direction his thought was tending.** There are, he 
said, two ways in which the second commandment 
may be broken. The first and most common in- 
fraction is swearing, cursing or other open dis- 
honoring of God’s name. The second is more 
subtle and so much more serious than the first that 
there can be no comparison of the two. This blas- 
phemy consists in preaching and teaching in the 
name of God, and with great show of piety, empty 
works of the devil.° The Pope is the greatest 
transgressor of all. He is steeped in this blasphemy 
since he commands in the name of God that which 
is contrary to the will of God. Heretics also 
have thus in the past misused the name of God — 
Arians, Manicheans, Pelagians, and all others who 
have taught like doctrines.** And the sects which 
are at present stirring up trouble imagine that they 
have the true Word of God; it is nothing but blas- 
phemy, however, and they must fall.’ “ You have, 
then, the two trespasses against this command- 


48 W. A., 16, pp. 464-477. This sermon was delivered prob- 
ably on 22 October. 

49 Tbid., p. 466 et seq. 

5° Ibid. .p. 467, 

51 Tbid., p. 466. 

52 [bid., p. 466 et seq. 


LUTHER AND DISSENT 11g 


ment: the first open and common .. . everyone 
understands it; the civil authorities punish it .. . 
the second is more subtle; it has the appearance 
of honoring God, as in the case of the false teachers 
and those who accept their doctrines. ‘These dis- 
honor the name of God and he will punish both, — 
send them both to the devil.” °* It should be noted 
also that false worship, as well as false teaching, 
constitutes blasphemy according to the theory which 
Luther here propounds.”* 

The implication in this sermon is that the second 
breach of this commandment is not to be punished 
by the civil authorities. Preachers must contend 
in this field, says Luther. ‘It is the greatest and 
most difficult work of this commandment that one 
defend the holy name of God against all who mis- 
use it in a spiritual sense, and publish it abroad 
among all men. For it is not enough that I for 
myself and in myself call upon and praise the name 
of God in joy and sorrow, I must also go forth and 
for the honor and name of God incur the enmity 
of all men, as Christ said to his disciples, ‘ all men 
will despise thee for my name’s sake.’** For this 
we must have the name of opposing authority, both 
ecclesiastical and civil, and be accused of disobedi- 
ence.” °* The same idea is expressed by Melanch- 
thon in his Judicium de jure reformandi. Preach- 
ers are bound to punish misuse of the name of God, 


53 Tbid., p. 470. PP LU pay as 
$4 101.90. 4.76. OST DIdi DA ANS 


120 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


which consists, he affirms, in wrong teaching and 
false worship.” 

In these utterances there is no insistence upon 
the duty of the government to enter the lists in 
behalf of true teaching and worship.* <A very 
different impression may, however, be gathered 
from Luther’s letters of the same period. ‘“ Doc- 
tor Martin also says,” wrote Spalatin to the Elector, 
“that your Highness should by no means permit 
anyone longer to carry on the unchristian cere- 
monies or to reinstate them.” °° And a few weeks 
later Luther wrote to Spalatin as follows: “In re- 
gard to your question whether the prince should sup- 
press abominations . . . [I reply] no one ought to 
be compelled to faith or the gospel. For there is no 
precedent for this. The prince has the right to rule 
in external matters alone. . . . The prince should 
Suppress open crime such as perjury, manifest blas- 
phemy of the name of God and the like... . I 
believe the example of Christ, when he made a 
whip and drove the merchants and money-changers 
from the temple by force, is sufficient warrant.” °° 
There is to be no compulsion to faith, but manifest 
blasphemies are to be suppressed by the prince; 

57 Pub. in C. R. I, c. 765. It was written late in T5285. 
Cf. Burr, p. 722 and note 11. 

68 Cf. C. R., I, c. 769 et seg., where is urged the duty of 
the prince to permit the institution of changes in teaching and 
forms of worship. 

°9 Printed in Kolde, Friedrich der Weise, Dp... 72.0 teu 


1525). 
°° Enders, 5, p. 271 et seg. Letter of 11 Nov., T5326) 


VUPHER AN DSODUISSE NT tL 


and false teaching is manifest blasphemy. The un- 
doubted purport of these letters, meant for the eye 
of the Elector, is that the prince is now responsible 
for the punishment of both breaches of the second 
commandment. 

Important for the understanding of Luther’s 
theory of repression of the sectaries is a clear com- 
prehension of the content of the word blasphemy 
as he came to employ it. In the Middle Ages it 
had meant wanton insult to the name of God. In 
its worst form it was the most heinous of sins, and 
as such was punishable by death under imperial 
law. But Luther gave it a far wider meaning. At 
the beginning of his revolt he used the word loosely 
to designate any teaching contrary to his own. 
Thus the contentions of Eck at the Disputation of 
Leipzig were heretical and blasphemous; °* the 
‘“Zwickau prophets ” were blasphemers; ** Emser 
was guilty of blasphemy, evidently because he wrote 
bitter diatribes attacking Luther.** Works blas- 
pheme the grace of God, to whom alone it belongs 
to justify and save through faith.°* The worst blas- 
phemers are those who pride themselves on the law, 
but do not keep it.°° Most ecclesiastics teach wrong 
doctrine and misuse their ecclesiastical power; 
against such blasphemers something must be done 

Sin bidwi2npe i13. 

82) [bid 73, D320. 

63 [bid., 4, P. 320. 


64 On Christian Liberty, Wace and Buchheim, p. 123. 
65 Yon den guten Werken, W. A., 6, p. 219. 


I22 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


for the honor of God.** The sectaries think they 
have the true spirit of Christ, but this is nothing 
else than blasphemy.*’ 

From these illustrations one may see the direction 
in which Luther’s thought is tending. As more 
and more the stress of conflict forces hypothesis 
into the position of proved truth, rhetoric becomes 
sober earnest. One may not punish for heresy; a 
man must be allowed to believe as he will, but the 
outward expression of erroneous belief must be 
punished as blasphemy by the civil power.*® Of 
significance for this changing point of view is his 
letter to Spengler, early in 1525, regarding the 
radicals of Nuremberg. He does not consider them 
blasphemers, but rather as “ Turks ” or “ apostate 
Christians,” whom it was not the province of the 
civil power to punish.*® His letter to Brismann on 
the same subject indicates somewhat the limits 
which he would then put upon the definition of 
the word. Judging from this letter, the crimes with 
which the painters were charged — denial of Christ, 
of the Word of God, of baptism and the Eucharist 


$60 Wi. A.,) 6,!p. 228) 

Be OW | Aart On) DA AOO EL NSED, 

68 Cf. his letter of later date (26 Aug., 1529) to Thos. 
Loscher. (Enders, 7, p. 150.) 

69 Enders, 5, p. 117. It will be remembered that the Coun- 
cil of Nuremberg had already proceeded against them as bdlas- 
phemous and seditious. Blasphemy, as there defined, consisted 
in denial of God and his Word, and obstinate clinging to error. 
(Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “ drei gottlosen 
Maler,’ p. 246.) 


LUTHER AND DISSENT 123 


— do not constitute blasphemy.’° But before the 
year was out, as we have seen, he was ready to 
pronounce as blasphemy erroneous teaching. And 
in his Judicium de jure reformandi Melanchthon, 
leaning on Luther, names five things which are 
manifest blasphemies of the name of Christ — to 
teach that we are sanctified by works, that the mass 
purifies those for whom it is held, that monastic 
life is the most holy, that one should invoke the 
saints, that the grace of the saints avails for our 
sins.” This is obviously directed against the 
Catholics, but the principle once stated is capable 
of extension to cover all teaching other than the 
orthodox Lutheran.” 

By the end of the year 1525, then, the hand of 
the magistrate was to reach into the realm of the 
spirit, as Luther defined it in his treatise on the 
civil power. Erroneous teaching was considered an 
offense to be taken cognizance of by the civil 
courts. It is not the duty of the prince to compel 
belief, for that must still be free. But he must 


70 Enders, 5, p. 118 (4 Feb., 1525): “nam et hic Satan per 
istos prophetas sic proficit, ut jam Nurmbergae aliquot cives 
negent, Christum aliquid esse, negent verbum Dei aliquid, negent 
baptismum et sacramentum altaris, negent civilem potestatem: 
solum confitentur esse Deum.” 

M2 COR, ic. 768. 

72 A few years later (1530) Luther gave to the world his 
ripened thought in the form of a commentary on the 82nd 
Psalm. Blasphemy it is to teach against an article of faith 
well grounded in Scripture or the creeds, and universally be- 
lieved. Those who, like the “ Anabaptists,”’ so teach are to 
be summarily dealt with by the civil power. (W. A. 311, p. 208.) 


124 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


guard against false teaching. It will be noted that 
a clear distinction is here drawn between belief 
and the open voicing of that belief. The former 
is to be tolerated, the latter must be suppressed. 
Luther in his theory of repression has returned sub- 
stantially to the viewpoint which he held before 
1517, only the crime is now blasphemy instead of 
heresy. 

The final step was taken when in February, 
1526, Luther urged upon his prince his duty to 
take action for the suppression of the openly con- 
ducted Catholic ceremonies at Altenburg.“ Two 
reasons he gave for this. In the first place it would 
be a violation of his conscience did he not put a 
stop to such blasphemous practices; and secondly, 
it is not to be tolerated by a civil magistrate that 
his subjects should be led by contrary preachers 
into division and dissension from which would come 
in the end sedition and riot. There must be but 
a single form of teaching in his domains. This 
letter followed a statement drawn up by Melanch- 
thon, Brisger, and Schaubis in which they urged 
that the prince suppress such ceremonies, as did 
the Jewish kings of old.* One recalls the condem- 
nation by Osiander of Pfeiffer’s pamphlets on the 
ground that he appealed to the Mosaic law for the 
suppression of false prophets. Osiander then 
claimed that the old law had been abrogated by 
the coming of Christ; 7 Luther and his followers 


73 Erlangen, 53, p. 368. 75 Vide supra, p. 45. 
74 Enders, 5, p. 318, note. 


la THERA ND DISS BN 125 


were themselves now ready to appeal to that law 
against their foes. With this Gutachten Luther 
pronounced himself in full accord.** Some small 
measure of toleration they would permit. Behind 
their doors these “‘ Papists ” might worship as they 
pleased, whom they pleased ‘‘ and as many gods as 
they will’; “’ but there must be no open worship, 
else might a stumbling block be interposed to the 
confusion of the weak. It is the duty of the state 
to act in its civil capacity as the protector of the 
faithful. 

Luther thus came in theory to the position taken, 
under stress of necessity, about one year earlier by 
the Evangelical theologians and the Council of 
Nuremberg. The question naturally presents itself, 
were Luther and his followers inconsistent? Were 
they false to the position which they assumed earlier 
in the Lutheran revolt? On first thought that ques- 
tion would be, and frequently has been, answered 
in the affirmative; and there is much evidence which 
may be adduced in substantiation of that view- 
point.”* On closer view, however, the inconsistency 
seems to be more apparent than real. The neces- 
sity of repression was inherent in the belief, to 


76 Erlangen, 53, p. 367. 

77 Ibid., p. 369. 

78 Faulkner, for example, in his essay on Luther and Tolera- 
tion, speaks of his inconsistency (p. 137 et seqg.). In individual 
acts and utterances Luther was undoubtedly inconsistent, but 
to the great guiding principle he was never untrue. The no- 
tion of his inconsistency seems to come largely from failure to 
take into consideration the changing situations which lay back 
of his utterances. 


126 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


which Luther and his followers clung, in a doc- 
trine of exclusive salvation. So long as Luther 
could believe that the Word of God would conquer 
the hearts of men, he could demand that external 
authority allow the individual to choose for himself 
in matters of religion. When that faith was shaken 
he turned inevitably to authority. That some of 
his followers arrived at this position earlier than 
he need not surprise us. Weaker men who follow 
a great leader are not apt to be so thoroughly 
gripped by the power of an idea and will more 
quickly turn, when the battle comes, to the power 
of the fist. Whether Luther borrowed from his 
Nuremberg friends in working out a theory of re- 
pression is a question that cannot be definitely an- 
swered. Nor can we know what he would have 
done had he been called upon to face the problem 
which had to be met by the authorities at Nurem- 
berg on January of 1525. He did, however, ex- 
press satisfaction that ‘“ Christ was so strong in 
their midst,” ” and in the following year he quoted 
approvingly their example in urging his prince to 
assume the burden of reforming the Church in his 
lands.*° 


79 Enders, 5, p. 166. 80 Erlangen, 53, p. 368. 


CHAPTER V 
TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION 


THE key to the understanding of the subsequent 
relations between the Lutherans and the sectaries is 
to be found in the position assumed by the terri- 
torial state in Luther’s system of reform. The years 
immediately following 1525 form the period in 
which his theories relative to the combating of 
dissent are worked out into a practical system. 
Luther frequently found it necessary to justify the 
positions taken,’ and hesitated often to apply the 
theory which he had evolved, “ for the great heart 
of the man was always more tolerant than his 
head.” ? In the main, however, the princes had no 
such scruples. Their duty it was to maintain order 
and their profit to take the lead in revolt from 
Rome. For to the secular powers and emoluments 
of the prince were now added the lands of the 
Church and the prerogatives of the bishop. He it 
was who, as the first member of the Christian com- 

1 For example in his letter to Loscher, 26 Aug. 1529 (Enders, 
7, p. 150), where he urges the suppression of sectaries as a 
state necessity. See also Erlangen, 54, p. 97, and W. A., 31 


pp. 208 e¢ seq. 
2 Burr, of, t.1p, \ 723) 


128 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


munity, now became responsible for the souls of 
his subjects. To the duty of suppressing dissent, 
by virtue of his office as secular prince, were added 
more positive functions looking toward church re- 
form, functions which partake of a more purely 
ecclesiastical character.’ The change came gradu- 
ally. The same forces, operative in extending his 
duties to the enforcement of the first as well as 
the second table of the Mosaic Law, operated also 
in placing upon him other duties of the bishop. 
To jus puniendi was added jus reformandi.' 

This development in the position and prerogatives 
of the prince in Evangelical lands must be briefly 
traced. The high place assigned by Luther to the 
civil power has already been indicated. His re- 
spect for authority was ingrained, but the limits of 
that authority he had carefully defined. It was to 
put a stop to abuses in the ecclesiastical order, but 
its power was to be only that of correction and re- 
straint. As “with a father who has lost his wits ” 
it was to deal with the Church.® The reform and 
organization of the religious community was to be 
left to each individual congregation. This was the 
settlement forced upon Luther when, after a few 
years of revolt, it became clear that he could not 

Be CFR ORICE Denar 7 

# For a discussion of the jus reformandi see Burkhard von 
Bonin, Die praktische Bedeutung des jus reformandi. Berlin 
dissertation, 1902. 


® Von den guten Werken (1520), W. A., 6, p. 258. Cf. 
Burr, p. 722, note. 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION 129 


carry the existing system with him, and some other 
expedient must therefore be found. ‘‘ When there 
is a parish which has the gospel, it not only has 
the right and the power, but is also bound by the 
pledge of its members to Christ at baptism, for their 
souls’ salvation, to avoid, flee from, depose or with- 
draw from the authority wielded by the present 
bishop, abbot, monastery, foundation, or their like, 
since one sees plainly that they teach and rule con- 
trary to God and his Word.” ® Such was Luther’s 
method of meeting a situation made inevitable by 
the circumstances of his revolt. ‘“‘ Pope, bishops, 
doctors, and everyone, have the power to teach, but 
the flock [the Christian community] shall judge 
whether theirs is the voice of Christ or of a 
stranger.” ’ A parish cannot exist without preaching 
and teaching, so it follows naturally enough that 
they must have preachers. But the present preach- 
ers are blind guides. Since the ecclesiastical hier- 
archy is corrupt, each congregation must choose its 
own pastor.° Luther’s viewpoint is here sufficiently 
manifest. No authority, either ecclesiastical, for 
that has proved recreant to its trust, or civil, since 
its arm does not reach into this field,? has any con- 
trol over the religious affairs of the Christian commu- 
nity. The members of this group are competent 


6 Dass ein christliche Versammlung ... Recht und Macht 
habe, alle Lehre eu urtheilen, ..- (1523), W. A.-1%, part: 

7 Ibid., p. 409. 

§ Ibid:, p. 41. 


9 As he argues in his pamphlet Von weltlicher Obrigkeit. 


130 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


to judge teaching, to depose false teachers, and to 
choose from their midst those who should instruct 
them in the true Word of God. 

No sooner is that statement made than it must 
be qualified. In case an entire community, Coun- 
cil and all, embrace the true faith, what function 
shall the Council assume as a member of the 
Gemeinde? In such a case Council and Church 
congregation are substantially one. The commu- 
nity as a whole cannot possibly act without the 
former. It becomes the duty of the Council, there- 
fore, as head of the community, to take the initia- 
tive and act for it. And it is quite the same whether 
temporal or spiritual matters are under considera- 
tion.*° Such a situation occurred in 1522 at Alten- 
burg.** A majority of the citizens, and among them 
the members of the Council, had embraced the 
Evangelical faith. They wished, therefore, an 
Evangelical pastor for their church of St. Bartholo- 
mew. As the Prior of the Augustinian convent in 
the city was in control of this church and properly 
had the right of appointment of the pastor, some 
unusual method was necessary to accomplish their 
ends. ‘The pulpit was filled by the Prior himself 
and his assistants. The community, therefore, 
under the leadership of the Council, refused to pay 
their tithes to him and, on the suggestion of Luther, 
called an Evangelical preacher, Gabriel Zwilling 


10 Miller, Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther, p. 50. 
11 For a discussion of this see Miiller, pp. 41, 49 et seq. 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION I3I 


by name, to the pastorate.2 It is comprehensible 
that such action should be bitterly opposed by the 
Prior and Chapter. The former said that when he 
assumed to appoint a burgomaster for the city, the 
Council might properly assume the power to ap- 
point a preacher.?® 

The opposition of the Chapter was so strong that 
it became necessary to call upon Elector Frederick 
to assist in settling the quarrel. On 8 May Luther 
wrote to him contending that the canons had lost 
their authority because they opposed the gospel, 
since power is not given by God for destruction, 
but for edification. And he makes this significant 
statement: “The Council of Altenburg and your 
Grace also are bounden to prohibit false preachers, 
at least to assist in or permit the installation of 
a true preacher.” ** Here is a case, then, in which 
not only the Council is to act as the head of the 
community, but even the prince may at need be 
called upon to assist in seeing that the people are 
enabled to secure an Evangelical preacher. But 
there the duty of the prince ends. It is still left 
for the congregation actually to choose the pas- 


12 Letter of Luther to the Burgomaster and Council of 
Altenburg, 6 May, 1522 (Erlangen, 53, p. 134): “Die Regel- 
herren haben keine Oberkeit mehr, wenn sie dem Evangelio 
entgegen sind, sodern sind als Wolfe zu meiden und zu 
verlassen.” 

13 Enders; 3, p. 334, note 2. 

14 Erlangen, 53, p. 135. Cf. letter of Hieronymus Schurf to 
the Elector, 9 Mar., 1522 (Enders, 3, 302), in which he urges 
the duty of the civil power to act in such matters. 


I32 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


tor. In point of fact, however, the Elector over- 
stepped these limits set by Luther. Zwilling was 
not satisfactory to him. He therefore refused to 
permit him to remain at Altenburg, after the com- 
munity had called him, and secured for the place 
Wenceslaus Link.** 

Other important instances there were in which 
this same question, or questions very similar, had 
to be met. But this will suffice to show the direc- 
tion in which theory and practice were tending. If 
the Council was expected to act as head of the 
community, what would be the duty of the prince 
in case an entire state should accept the Evangeli- 
cal faith? And if a prince should accept the true 
faith, could he conscientiously permit the ‘“ horrid 
blasphemy of the papal mass ” to be celebrated or 
the equally dangerous sects to exist in his terri- 
tories? Ever the vision grows more clear of a 
state being won to the cause of the Wittenberg 
reformer. In 1525 Philip of Hesse threw in his 
lot openly on the side of Luther; that same year 
Duke John became Elector of Saxony; and, most 
significant of all, the Grand Master of the Teutonic 
Knights, Albert of Brandenburg, accepted the 
Lutheran faith, secularized his domain, and thus 
made Prussia an Evangelical state under the 
suzerainty of the King of Poland. As head of the 
state would the prince have any ecclesiastical duty 
to perform or would each community still remain 


15 Miller, p. 52. 
16 Cf. Miller, pp. 51 et seq. 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION 133 


supreme in matters affecting the governance of its 
religious life? 

The problems raised at Altenburg concerning the 
rights of patrons, whose interests so frequently 
clashed with those of the community, served to 
make evident the need of some higher authority to 
unify and control the growing movement of revolt 
from the Catholic Church. It was manifest not 
only that the people were sometimes prone to choose 
pastors of questionable orthodoxy, it was likewise 
clear that they were not always able, because of 
powertul patrons, to secure the pastors whom they 
wanted. Luther would sweep away the authority 
and revenues of such patrons when they acted 
openly against gospel teaching by opposing the in- 
stallation of preachers of what was to him the true 
faith. But that was only one step toward the solu- 
tion of the problem of discovering some real au- 
thority in whose hands power taken from them 
might be placed. 

An added reason for the assumption of control 
over religious matters by the prince was the con- 
fiscation of church property and revenues. It is 
beside the point to more than mention this here; 
but the fact must be borne in mind that it was one 
of the strong inducements which influenced the 
princes to accept the Evangelical faith. Luther’s 
whole theory, as enunciated in the early years of 
his revolt, was opposed to the possession of prop- 
erty by the Church. It was for the princes to see 
to it that Rome disgorged the wealth stolen from 


134 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


Germany,'’ and what could be more natural than 
for the princes to take this for themselves? Then, 
as communities went over to the Evangelical faith, 
monasteries and endowments fell into the hands of 
the civil authorities. This confiscation of religious 
foundations removed accustomed support from 
churches, schools, and hospitals; the money was 
diverted into other channels. Preachers were un- 
supported, schools were falling into decay, confu- 
sion was everywhere. Some means must be found 
for bringing order out of disorder. In October of 
1525 Spalatin brought the matter to the attention 
of his prince, Elector John. ‘ Doctor Martin,” he 
wrote, “considers it above all necessary that your 
Grace should take for yourself all the property of 
the Church in your principality and provide for the 
pastors, preachers, chaplains, and other servants of 
the Church therefrom.” ** The following spring 
Luther wrote that it was the duty of the prince to 
see to it that but one faith was taught in his do- 
mains.’” Here one sees the whole theory of the 
territorial state-church. Church lands are to be 
controlled by the prince and from their revenues he 
is to provide for pastors whom he shall appoint, 
and it is to be his duty to see that they are incul- 
cating true Evangelical doctrines.” 


17 Address to the German Nobility, Wace and Buchheim, 
p. 36. 

18 Letter of rt Oct., 1525. In Kolde’s Friedrich der Weise, 
p. 70. This is like the action taken by the Council at Nurem- 
berg in March of the same year. 19 Letter of 9 Feb., 1526. 

“0 It may seem that this last clause reads too much into 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION 135 


All this received its practical expression and be- 
came a part of Evangelical state polity at the Diet 
of Spires held in the summer of 1526.7" At this 
Diet the Catholic and Evangelical parties were 
about equally divided. Sharp question arose in re- 
gard to the religious settlement. The Catholic 
party, headed by Archduke Ferdinand, demanded 
that the Edict of Worms be enforced. ‘The states 
——and among these the imperial towns especially 
—which had accepted the new doctrines, seeing in 
such action the undoing of all their work, the rein- 
statement of episcopal jurisdiction, and the return 
of all confiscated property, stood as a unit against 
it. The hands of the Emperor were tied by for- 
eign affairs; the Pope was in league against him. 
The deliberations of the Diet ended in a compro- 
mise measure. Until the calling of a free Chris- 
tian council the ruler of each state was, in matters 
pertaining to the Edict of Worms, to “ so live, rule, 
and conduct himself as he hoped to answer it to 
God and his Imperial Majesty.” *? The clause was 
purposely ambiguous; no other expedient could 
have been adopted, since the two sides were evenly 
matched. Each party could now read into it just 
Luther’s letter of 9 Feb., 1526. It is certainly implied, how- 
ever, for unity of teaching meant Luther’s teaching alone. 

21 Friedensburg in Der Reichstag zu Speier, 1526, has made 
the most careful study of this Diet. Some of his conclusions 
have been questioned by Brieger, Der Speierer Reichstag. The 
latter has been reviewed by Friedensburg in A. R. G., 1910, 


Pp. 93 et sqq. Cf. also Miiller, Kirchengeschichte Il, p. 338. 
22 Walch, XXI, c. 268. 


136 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


such an interpretation as it chose. This clause of 
the Recess made possible the continuance of Evan- 
gelical teaching and the establishment of Evangeli- 
cal doctrine on a basis more firm than ever before. 

One reason why action so favorable to the cause 
opposed to Rome was put through at this time was 
that earlier in the year there had been formed at 
Torgau a league of Lutheran states. This gave 
them unity and a feeling of strength which would 
otherwise have been impossible. The members of 
this league recognized it as their duty, ‘‘ by virtue 
of their ordination by God,” not only to protect 
their subjects from any unjust force and to see to 
it that these subjects were instructed in the Word 
of God, but they also considered themselves bound 
to maintain them in the true faith, protected in this 
against all attacks from opponents. This pact 
was originally signed by the Elector of Saxony and 
the Landgrave of Hesse only, but on 12 June the 
League was joined by a number of other states, 
and two days later by the city of Magdeburg.** 
This last marked it as peculiarly an Evangelical 
league and not simply a league of princes such as 


23 [Da wir] Amts halben, darzu wir von Gott dem All- 
machtigen versehen, den Unsern schuldig und pflichtig seyn, 
dieselbe vor unbilliger Gewalt zu _ schiitzen, auch  getreue 
Vorsehung zu thun, damit dieselbige unsere Unterthanen nicht 
allein mit dem Wort Gottes weiter bewiedemt; sondern neben 
dem also versehen werden, dass sie darbey bleiben, und vor 
Gewalt der Widerwartigen beschiitzt und errettet werden mégen. 
(Walch, XVI, c. 530.) 

24 The documents for this are in Walch, XVI. 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION 137 


had been common in preceding centuries. It was 
significant that cities and principalities were now 
prepared to unite for the Evangelical cause. 

The wording of this document leaves little doubt 
as to how the Recess of Spires would be under- 
stood by the authorities in states which adhered to 
the cause of Luther. By them it was held to grant 
the right to carry out thorough-going reforms in 
their territories. From that August day at Spires 
date the territorial state churches. 

Organization came swiftly. In his letter of Octo- 
ber, 1525, Spalatin had told the Elector that Luther 
considered a visitation necessary.*? Three months 
after the meeting of the Diet of Spires Luther him- 
self wrote to the Elector on the subject. The letter 
is worth quoting at some length as it states with 
considerable exactness Luther’s position in the mat- 
ter. He wrote: 

“In the first place, your worshipful Highness, almost 
everywhere the complaints of the pastors are beyond 
measure. The peasants refuse to give any more and 
there is such unthankfulness for God’s Holy Word among 
the people that there can be no question that a great 
punishment from God is at hand. If I knew how to 


25 Spalatin to the Elector, 1 Oct., 1525, in Kolde, Friedrich 
der Weise, p. 71. This is quite contrary to Luther’s standpoint 
in his letter (cited pp. 112 et sqq.) to John Frederick, July, 
1524, in which he opposed such a visitation on the ground that 
it overstepped the authority of the prince. On 5 May, 1525, 
too, he wrote a letter to the Council at Danzig in which he 
sharply distinguished between the temporal and the spiritual 
powers. They must not, he said, be confused. (Erlangen, 53, 
p. 296.) 


138 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


do it with a good conscience, I certainly should assist 
in bringing it about that they would have no more pas- 
tors, and let them live like swine, as indeed they do. 
There is no longer fear of God or discipline since the 
papal ban is gone; everyone does as he pleases. But 
because all of us, especially the magistrates, are bidden 
before all to care for the poor youth that are being born 
daily and are growing up, and to keep them in the fear 
of God and in good training, it is mecessary that we 
have schools, preachers, and pastors. If the parents 
don’t wish this, they may go to the devil. But where 
the youngsters remain neglected and untrained that is 
the fault of the magistrate, and as a result the land will 
be full of wild and vicious people. So not alone God’s 
law, but our own necessity, compels us to find some 
remedy. 

But now, since in your Grace’s lands papal and eccle- 
siastical restraint and order have ceased and all monas- 
teries and foundations have fallen into your Grace’s 
hands as the supreme head, there comes with them the 
duty and burden of ordering such things. No one else 
can or should take it up. Therefore, as I talked it 
over fully with your Chancellor and with Nicholas von 
Ende, it seems necessary that your Grace, as one whom 
God has in such case ordained and invested with the 
task, command as soon as possible that your territories 
be visited by four persons — two to have oversight over 
revenues and property, two who are able to judge doc- 
trine and character. These, by your Grace’s command 
should regulate and care for schools and parishes as 
may be necessary.’ 7° 


*6 Luther to Elector John, 22 Nov., 1526. (Erlangen, 53, 
Pp. 386 et seq.) 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION 139 


There then follow more specific recommendations. 
If a city or village has means the Elector should 
force it to support schools and churches. If he 
meets with a refusal, for the sake of the youth he 
is to compel the performance of this duty, just as 
a community is bound to maintain roads, bridges 
and the like. The confiscated property of the 
monasteries might be turned to this use. “ For 
your Grace can well imagine that there would be 
an evil outcry and one not easily answered, if the 
schools and parishes were left neglected and the 
nobles were to take the property of the monasteries 
for their own use, as people are already saying and 
as several are doing.” 

No clearer exposition of the causes which drove 
Luther to seek the assistance of the prince to ground 
some sort of organization for his church need be 
sought. The people are incapable, ecclesiastical 
rule is abolished, the property of the monasteries 
is being indiscriminately appropriated by the nobles, 
there must be some authority competent to compel 
the support of schools and parishes for the sake 
of the growing youth. The prince has a very defi- © 
nite responsibility for the spiritual growth of his 
subjects. It is for him to appoint a commission 
which shall not only organize external reforms but 
which may judge doctrine as well. 

This responsibility the prince was very ready 
to assume. A few days later the Elector replied 
that he considered it the proper duty of the ruler 


I40 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


to take action in such matters.*’ The actual steps 
were taken during the years 1527 and 1528. In 
June of 1527 the Elector issued instructions for the 
visitors.** With the whole question of the visita- 
tion it is not necessary to deal.*® Only in so far 
as it has to do with the attitude of Lutheran states 
toward dissent will it be discussed here. The visi- 
tors were to discover how the preachers, teachers, 
and chaplains were carrying on their work.*° If 
any preachers were not inculcating the true Word 
of God, they must leave their charges and betake 
themselves from the principality. ‘“ For although 
it is not our intent to prescribe to anyone what 
he shall hold or believe, we will none the less, in 
order to guard against sedition and other offenses, 
recognize or tolerate no sects or schisms in our 
principality and lands. . .. Likewise shall the 
same inquisition be made by the visitors regarding 
the laity, since we learn that in several places divers 
divisions, and especially concerning the sacraments, 
have taken root.” ** Those thus found to be in 
error were to be instructed. ‘“‘ Those who refuse 


27 Elector to Luther, 26 Nov., 1526. (Enders, 5, p. 408.) 

28 Published in Sehling, Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen 
des XVI Jahrhunderts, vol. I, pp. 142-148. Also in Richter, Die 
evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts. 
Urkunden und Regesten ...., I, pp. 77-82. 

29 This is discussed by Burkhardt, Geschichte der sdchsischen 
Kirchen und Schulvisitation, 1524-1545. Of the underlying prin- 
ciples governing the relations between civil and spiritual power, 
the best discussion is to be found in Miiller, pp. 63-80. 

BP MERLING CL asad s: 

31 Jbid., p. 144. 


TOWARDS Al POLICY OF REPRESSION I41I 


Christian instruction shall be ordered by our visi- 
tors, bailiffs, tax-collectors, and every magistracy, 
within a reasonable time to sell their goods and 
leave our territories.” ** 

It will be seen from the above citations that these 
visitors were considered as officials of the prince, 
that they were to make inquisition not only into 
the lives and teaching of the clergy but of the laity 
as well, and that they, or other officials, were to 
see to it that those who refused to conform to the 
recognized Evangelical teaching were to leave the 
territories of the Elector. 

With this plan of visitation Luther was in prac- 
tical agreement. In his Introduction to the Unter- 
richt der Visitatoren an die Pfarrherrn** he says 
that, since all ecclesiastical power has been done 
away and great confusion has resulted, he has asked 
the Elector “as our true civil authority ordained 
of God” to appoint visitors. He is to do this out 
of ‘ Christian love,” since he “is not bound to do 
it as a civil ruler,” for the good of the gospel and 
salvation of the poor Christians in his lands.** The 
prince is not commanded to teach or to rule in the 
spiritual realm; he is, however, bound as a civil 
ruler to maintain order, that division, tumult, and 
sedition may not arise among his subjects.*” Luther 

32 Ibid., p. 144. 

83 Published in Sehling, I, pp. 149 et sqq., in Richter, pp. 82 
et sqq. and in W. A., 26, pp. 195 et sqq. 


84 W. A., 26, p. 197. 
oo Gig tt 200: 


I42 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


here speaks only of tumult or sedition, which the 
prince is to put down. But that he had in mind 
more than possible attacks upon civil authority 
seems to be indicated by the fact that he cited the 
action of the Emperor Constantine when he took 
measures to put a stop to the Arian controversy. 
The Emperor then took measures to suppress an 
heretical sect; Luther’s present counsel appears 
much like the old expedient against heresy brought 
forth under a new name.*® 

The Lutherans now had a theory whereby dis- 
sent might be crushed. They had a book which 
was the authoritative repository of God’s Word; 
they had regularly appointed pastors who alone 
were to be allowed to preach and to teach; they 
had an inquisitorial process by which dissent might 
be hunted out; they had the powerful arm of the 
territorial prince whose duty it was to protect the 
pious and maintain purity of faith; they had pun- 
ishable crimes—blasphemy and _ sedition — of 
which dissenters might be accused. The only thing 
which now stood between the separatists and re- 
pression as thorough-going as that of the older 
Church was the question of expediency. 

From the authoritarian viewpoint there was need 
of the theory of repression thus evolved. The year 
1525 had marked a significant increase in the sec- 
tarlan propaganda. “After the peasants’ war... 


86 Cf, Volker, p. 87. It should be noted in this connection, 
however, that Constantine was moved more by a desire to main- 
tain civic order than to interfere in ecclesiastical questions. 


TOWARDSVAUIPOETOY OR “REP RES S1 ON 2043 


God’s Word and the gospel of Jesus Christ spread 
over all Germany,” one reads in the Geschichts- 
bucher der Wiedertdufer.** And the chronicle goes 
on to say: “In the year 1519 Martin Luther, an 
Augustinian friar of Wittenberg in Saxony, began 
to teach and to write, as did Zwingli in Zurich in 
Swiss lands, against the barren abominations of the 
Babylonish brothel, and brought to light all its 
malice, drunkenness, and knavery. Like a thun- 
derbolt they sought to strike down everything, and 
yet they failed to build up anything better. Rather 
did they turn at once to the civil power and author- 
ity (there to seek protection for the cross) and 
trusted more in man’s aid than in God. For this 
reason, though in the beginning they seemed to have 
a heaven-sent vision, the light of real truth was 
again dimmed in them.” ** In 1525 rebaptism be- 
gan in the Swiss cantons.*® Immediately those who 
practiced it became known as a sect dangerous alike 
to religion and the state. They came into clash 
with authority, banishment followed, and these 


87 Beck, p. Io. 

38 Tbid., pp. 12 et seg. The last sentence (p. 13) reads: 
“Und umb der ursach, ob es vor wol einen gueten anfang 
gottlicher Erscheinung und Anmuets gehabt, ist inen das licht 
der rechten warhait widerumb verdunkelt.” Cf. the testimony 
of Sebastian Franck, Geschichtsbivel, p. ccccxiv. Cf. also Grebel 
to Vadian, 14 Oct., 1524, in ‘“‘ Vadianische Briefsammlung,” 
Mitteilungen zur vaterlindischen Geschichte, 3 Folge, vol. 7, 
p. 89: “iudicabit aequus lector e Carolostadianis libellis, quam 
retrogradiatur Lutherus.. . .” 

89 Beck, pp. 16, 19. Cf. Keller, Gesch. der Wiedertaufer, 
whe 


I44 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


pioneers were sent wandering throughout southern 
and southeastern Germany. Their efforts were 
aided by leaders such as Denck and Hut. Every- 
where they found people ready to listen to their 
message. The movement quickly spread through 
upper and central Germany —to Augsburg, the 
center of the “ Anabaptist ” activity in upper Ger- 
many, to Strassburg, where was felt the influence 
of Denck and Hatzer, to Nuremberg, north to 
Thuringia, where, through the preaching of Hut, 
“ Anabaptism ” reached its bloom period in 1526— 
27. Down the Rhine it went through Westphalia 
to the Netherlands, where the soil had been pre- 
pared by humanistic teaching and by the writings 
of the mystics.*° One student of the period even 
goes so far as to say that at this time it was not 
at all clear whether Luther or the “ Anabaptists ” 
would gain the upper hand in impressing their move- 
ment upon Germany.** 

By the year 1527 dissent had assumed seriously 
alarming proportions, and it looked as though some 
sort of organization might be formed whereby the 
movement would gain a certain cohesion.*? At 
Augsburg in the summer of that year a number of 
the leaders were present at a so-called “ synod.” 
Here they seem to have discussed points of likeness 


40 Rembert, Die “ Wiedertéiufer” im Herzogtum Jiilich, esp. 
Pt. I Chap 

41 Miiller, E., Geschichte der bernischen Taufer, p. 14. 

42 Keller, Gesch. der Wiedertéufer, pp. 35 et sqq. 


TOWARDS “AD PODTCY OF REPRESSION I45 


and of difference and some plan of propaganda 
seems to have been formulated.** ‘Apostles ” 
were sent to various parts of Germany to preach, 
teach, and convert.** Through the writings of some 
of their leaders — such as Denck, Hubmaier, Sat- 
tler, — their ideas were being quietly disseminated 
among the people of Germany.*’. 

These writings, together with the personal propa- 
ganda, made strong appeal to the man who was 
seeking a way out from ecclesiastical and secular 
dictation in religious matters. The mingling of 
plans for social reform with their religious theories 
proved another strong attracting force. Every re- 
ligious propaganda, if it is to make its appeal to 
the working man, must carry with it a practical 
program of reform rather than fine-spun dogma 
and philosophically worded creed. The statement 
of Jesus that all men should be brothers carries 
with it an appeal which the philosophical question 
regarding the nature of Christ and his relation to 
the God-head does not possess. This movement 
furnished just such an appeal. When Luther had 
seemed to voice like principles he carried men with 
him, but when he threw in his lot with authority, 
the common man, whose interest had been awak- 

43 Roth, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte, pp. 232 et sqq. 

44 Ibid., p. 234. Cf. statements of Hut and others, in Meyer, 
pp. 226, 248; also letter of Eck to Duke George of Saxony, in 


Seidemann, Miinzer, p. 150. 
45 Keller, Gesch. der Wiedertaéufer, pp. 37, 40. 


146 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


ened and whose intellect had been fed, turned to 
other leaders or to no leaders at all, worshipping 
God in his own way. 

To the believer in the sacredness of constituted 
authority their teachings were blasphemous, their 
propaganda seditious. Active measures were taken 
against them, especially the leaders, as soon as au- 
thorities were fully awake to the danger. As yet 
these measures were sporadic and occasional. At 
Zurich the law of 1525, threatening with banish- 
ment all those who refused to have their children 
baptized, was supplemented in 1526 by a mandate 
imposing the death penalty upon anyone who re- 
baptized.** But this sentence seemed too drastic; 
the neighboring cantons refused to endorse such ac- 
tion until January of the following year. In that 
month, as a warning to others, Felix Manz was put 
to death at Zurich for fidelity to his belief, while at 
the same time his friend and companion, Blaurock, 
was banished as an alien.*’ Later in the year (8 
Sept.) concurrent action was taken by the cities of 
Zurich, Bern, and St. Gall. The mandate then 
issued jointly by the three cantons rehearsed and 
refuted the errors of the “ Anabaptists,” and pre- 
scribed penalties for maintaining their beliefs. The 
penalty should be made to conform to the nature of 


46 Egli, Actensammlung zur Geschichte der Ziircher Reforma- 
tion in den Jahren 1519-1533, no. 936. Mandate of 7 Mar., 
15206. 

47 Fisslin (Fiissli), Beytraége zur Erliuterung der Kirchen- 
Reformations Geschichten des Schweitzerlandes, IV, pp. 259-265. 
Cf. Volker, p. 95. 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION.147 


the offense. Those who had been led into the sect 
by the smooth words of the leaders were to be 
kindly dealt with, but the propaganda of the leaders 
was to be stopped by whatever means proved neces- 
sary.** 

In Germany, for those states which upheld the 
Edict of Worms the question was simple. They 
had the advantage of a settled policy and the au- 
thority of a special edict. All who refused to sub- 
scribe to the articles of the Catholic Church were 
heretics and as such were to be punished.*® Even 
in these states, however, special measures were 
taken to stamp out the sectaries. In August, 1527, 
Archduke Ferdinand issued an edict directed against 
all heretics, but especially against the ‘‘ Anabap- 
tists.” °° The same fall Duke William of Bavaria 
directed an edict specifically against them. All who 
recanted were to be beheaded, those who refused 
to recant were to be burned.®* Measures only 
slightly less drastic were resorted to by Duke 
George of Saxony.” 

Lutheran states were equally quick to perceive 


48 Simler, Sammlung, Vol. Il, pp. 449-458. 

49 See for example the mandate of William of Bavaria. 
Pub. in Winter, Baierischen Wiedertdufer, p. 173. 

50 Beck, p. 60, note 1. Cf. also Bucholtz, Geschichte der 
Regierung Ferdinands des Ersten, Vol. VIII, p. 138. 

51 Letter of Eck to Duke George of Saxony, 26 Nov., 1527, 
pub. in Seidemann, p. 150. See also mandate of William and 
Ludwig of Bavaria, 15 Nov., 1527, in Winter, pp. 170 et sqq. 

52 Enders, 6, p. 161, note 5. Mandate of 31 Dec. in Wap- 
pler, Tduferbewegung in Thiiringen, pp. 266 et seq. But Duke 
George was more inclined to leniency than was William of 
Bavaria. (Wappler, zbid., p. 284 et seq.) 


148 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


the danger. Their theory of repression was com- 
plete; they had only to develop a policy. Laws 
directed against the sectaries came early. It has 
been noted above how, in regions dominated by 
Zwingli, legislation began in 1525. We have seen 
also how dissent was dealt with in Nuremberg early 
in the same year.2? Wandering teachers were driven 
from place to place. Early in 1527 a comprehen- 
sive edict was issued by the Elector of Saxony in 
an attempt to check ‘‘ Anabaptist ” propaganda in 
Thuringia. By the terms of this proclamation any- 
one other than regularly appointed pastors, preach- 
ers, and chaplains, whose duty is the care of souls, 
was forbidden to preach or baptize in his home or 
in any other place, or to exercise any other such 
office. The edict was first issued for the territory 
surrounding Coburg, but on 31 March was ex- 
tended to include all of Thuringia and Saxon Fran- 
conia.°* It is to be noted that this mandate was 
directed against all irregular preaching. ‘The so- 
called Winkelprediger were considered especially 
dangerous as fomenters of sedition. On the strength 
of the mandate four radicals were put to death at 
Konigsberg °° early in the summer of 1527, and 
later in the same year eleven— ten men and one 
woman — suffered a like fate.°° In June, the in- 
53 Vide Supra, chap. III. 


54 Wappler, Stellung Kursachsens und Hessens, p. 3 and 


note 4. 
55 A jittle town in Saxon territory northwest of Bamberg. 
56 Wappler, Stellung Kursachsens und Hessens, p. 3 et seq. 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION I49 


structions to the visitors provided for inquisition to 
discover those who had been influenced by these 
radical leaders and prescribed the penalty for all 
who remained firm in their error. By the middle 
of the summer of the year 1527, therefore, in 
Luther’s own land of Saxony active measures had 
been taken for the extirpation of radical leaders. 
The cities of south Germany were likewise seek- 
ing means for overcoming the danger. Step by 
step they were feeling their way toward a settled 
policy. The Council of Strassburg had, in January 
of 1526, issued a mandate commanding all citizens, 
clerical and lay, to avoid slander and quarrels, on 
the ground that such things lead to blasphemy and 
injury to the cause of religion.*’ Later in the year 
special notice was taken of the interruption of a 
service at the Minster by an “ Anabaptist” who 
accused Matthew Zell, the preacher, of misinter- 
preting Scripture.** On 27 July of the following 
year was published an ordinance warning citizens 
against sects and erroneous doctrines, especially 
those of the “ Anabaptists,” and forbidding the 
harboring of false teachers. This carried a general 
and rather vague admonition to the effect that any 
infringement of its clauses would not go unpun- 
ished.°® In the fall one Thomas Salzmann, an 
57 Pub. in Rohrich, p. 29, dated 5 Jan., 1526. 
58 Capito to Zwingli, 11 June, 1526. (C. R., XCV, p. 624.) 
59 Pub. in Rohbrich, pp. 33 et seg. An original copy of the 


mandate, printed in the form of a placard, is to be found in 
Cornell University Library. 


I50 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


artisan, was arrested on the charge of complete de- 
nial of Christ and the New Testament. He was 
reported to have said that Christ was a false 
prophet who had met a just fate on the cross. In 
spite of his plea for pardon on the ground of mis- 
interpretation of the Bible he was put to death for 
blasphemy.°® In- general, however, it may be said 
that the ordinance was issued chiefly as a warning; 
its more drastic clauses were rarely invoked. Dur- 
ing the year several radical leaders were banished 
from the city and a number of the separatists were 
apprehended, but no disposition to adopt more 
stringent measures against them was evidenced by 
the Council.** 

In Augsburg the rapidly increasing numbers of 
“ Anabaptists ” and the “synod ” of August, 1527, 
stung the Council to action. Late in August a num- 
ber of sectaries were seized and examined in an 
attempt to discover the extent and peculiar tenets 
of the radical movement. ‘Though torture was used 
to extort confessions the results of the examination 
were extremely meagre.” During the following 
month further arrests were made and among those 
apprehended was Hans Hut. Any who were willing 
to accept instruction and recant were allowed to 


60 Documents in Rohrich, p. 30. 

61 [bid., pp. 30 et seg. For the unsettled state of thought 
in Strassburg see Gerbel to Luther (Enders, 6, p. 82) and Bedro- 
tus to Vadian (Mitteilungen zur ater aaiicher Coe 
8, pp. 66 et seq.). 

62 Roth, Augsburg, I, p. 234. 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION I5I!I 


go free with but light penalties; °° those who clung 
to their error were banished from the city.** On 
16 September the Council passed an ordinance re- 
quiring all to take oath not to rebaptize.*” Some 
three weeks later, after inquiry as to action taken 
in other places,*° the policy of the Council was 
made more definite by the issuance of a decree, by 
the terms of which any connection with the sec- 
tarian movement was punishable in life and limb 
or by heavy fine. Citizens were not to refuse to 
have their children baptized, were to avoid secret 
meetings of the sects, and were forbidden to afford 
shelter to the unauthorized preachers [Winkel- 
prediger]. The leaders were to be expelled from 
the city.°* There was, however, considerable hesi- 
tation in pushing to the limit the provisions of this 
order.** As in other Lutheran states the Council 
was not yet quite sure of its ground. 

What is known concerning the sectaries in 
Nuremberg during the years 1526-1527 may be 
quickly told.*® Soon after the banishment of Denck 

68 Letter of Eck to Duke George (Seidemann, p. 151.) “ Die 
von Augsburg habent die revocierenden all auss gelassen.” 

6 Roth, pp. 234 et seq. 

OF LDIOA DA 245) 

66 Ziirich Council to Augsburg, 15 Sept., 1527. (Egli, Acten- 
sammlung, no. 1262.) 

67 The decree is published in Meyer, Die Anfange des 
Wiedertadufertums in Augsburg, pp. 251 et seq. 

68 Roth, Augsburg, I, pp. 237 et seq. 

69 It is possible that the archives of Nuremberg and Bam- 


berg might yield additional data concerning the radical move- 
ment there during these years; Soden seems to have found 


152 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


and the painters Spengler wrote to his friend, 
Clemens Volkamer, stating that the preachers and 
the Council together had succeeded in halting the 
spread of Karlstadt’s teaching. Such errors, he 
said, could not long maintain themselves, since they 
were so “clearly contrary to Scripture and the 
Word of God,” and since ‘ they were grounded on 
the subtleties of reason... . Here everything is 
going well and I have no fear that any great dis- 
pute or error will grow out of it. For the preachers 
and the authorities have met this disease in time, 
and since the preachers are opposed to it there is 
good hope for the laity.” “° But Spengler was too 
confident. Despite the appearance of quiet there 
is reason to believe that the sectaries were gradu- 
ally gaining ground in the city.’ In the summer of 
1526 the Council found it necessary again to forbid 
the sale of Karlstadt’s books. The books of Zwingli 
and the report of the disputation at Baden concern- 
ing the Eucharist were also banned. This last was 
due in large part to the efforts of the Swiss reformer 
in his attempt to win the south German cities to 
his cause, but it seems fair to credit it in part also 
to the increased activity of the sectaries from the 


some material of which he makes use (Beiirdge, esp. pp. 278 
et seq. and 319 et seq.); a letter of the Council to the Mar- 
grave of Brandenburg (Nicoladoni, Johann Biinderlin, p. 232) 
mentions a number of “ Urgichten”; the Grundliche Unter- 
richtung mentions several warnings against the “ Anabaptists.” 
70 Quoted from Barge, II, p. 243. Barge accepts Spengler’s 
statement at face value. *1 Cf, Kolde; pam 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION 153 


southland. It is highly probable that the heightened 
severity of the measures adopted at Ziirich and 
the neighboring cantons against the ‘‘ Anabaptists ” 
was driving some fugitives to Nuremberg as well 
as to other cities of south Germany.” At the same 
time the preachers were urged to refute these 
erroneous teachings and to give the citizens careful 
instruction in the orthodox faith. The people on 
their part were bidden to pay strict attention to 
their preachers, and not to be led astray by false 
teachers.”* There had been informal gatherings at 
which religious subjects had been discussed; such 
meetings and discussions furnished excellent oppor- 
tunity for the spread of a spirit of dissent and were 
therefore ordered discontinued.” 

Preventive measures were insufficient to meet the 
issue. The result was more drastic action by the 
Council in August. The Behaim brothers, in whose 
favor the sentence of banishment had been revoked 
in November, 1525, were again brought before the 
Council on suspicion of heterodoxy. Proof to war- 
rant further action against. them could not be ob- 
tained, but so sharp a watch was kept of them that 
Bartel found it wise again to leave the city.” Two 
others were even less fortunate. Hans Greiffen- 
berger, whose examination some two years previ- 
ously has already been noted, and Andreas von 


72 Cf. Roth, Nurnberg, p. 256. 

73 Will, pp. 72 et seq. 

74 Soden, p. 273. The date of this order is by him given 
as 14 July. 75 Kolde, p. 71. 


I54 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


Lowen, cantor at St. Sebald, were examined at this 
time. Both were charged with error concerning the 
sacrament of the Eucharist, and both were banished 
from the city.” 

These instances serve to show that there were in 
Nuremberg the same elements of unrest as were 
evidenced throughout the rest of central and south 
Germany. The Council in its letter to Poliander 
had pointed to a disagreement of the ministers as 
a fruitful source from which doubt and error might 
be instilled into the minds of the laymen.” This 
was now making itself apparent and added its in- 
fluence to that of the active radical propaganda. 
Osiander published, with an introduction, Luther’s 
sermon Von der Kindertauf und fremden Glauben.”® 
No better commentary is needed to show the direc- 
tion in which radical thought was turning. 

The history of the sectaries in Nuremberg during 
the next few years connects itself with the life and 
work of the “ Anabaptist apostle,’ Hans Hut. Of 
his visit in 1524 mention has already been made.” 
It is known that he. was there again some time 
during the winter of 1526-27. Whether he had 
visited the city at any time between these dates 
is problematical. It seems very probable, however, 
that he had. He was at Frankenhausen with Miin- 
zer in June of 1525, went thence to Bibra,®° and 


“SSodens, pi 274) 

‘7 Vide supra, Chap. III, note 67. 

78 Roth, Niirnberg, p. 256. 

79 Vide supra, pp. 35 et seq. &0 Meyer) p. 24% 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION 155 


during the Lenten season of 1526 was at Augsburg.” 
The following summer he was back in Saxony at 
Konigsberg.*? It is reasonable to surmise that, 
since Nuremberg is on the direct route, he stopped 
there at least once on the journey between Saxony 
and Augsburg. He later testified that he was well 
acquainted with Wolfgang Vogel, pastor at Elters- 
dorf, and that the latter had been with him a num- 
ber of times; ** that he was well known in Nurem- 
berg; ** and that Jacob Dolmann, pastor of St. 
Jacob’s church, had been with him several times.” 
Another scrap of information that points in the 
same direction is to be gleaned from the testimony 
of Martin Weischenfelders, an ‘‘ Anabaptist ” from 
Uetzing, who on examination in March, 1527, stated 
that. he thought Hut was a citizen of Nuremberg.” 

Hut had been carrying on a surprisingly active 
and successful propaganda, during the year 1526, 
from KGnigsberg in Saxony south to Augsburg and 
east to Nikolsburg. He had a considerable group 
of followers at Altenerlangen.®’ From these he 
parted late in 1526 with the intention of proceeding 
to Nuremberg, thence to Augsburg, and returning 


81 Jbid., p. 224. 

82 [bid., p. 240. 

83 [bid., Dp. 243. 

84 Jbid., p, 229. 

85 [bid., p. 230. 

86 Wappler, Tauferbewegung in Thiiringen, p. 239. 

87 It is interesting to note in this connection that one of the 
charges against the three painters in 1525 was that they were 
carrying on propaganda at Erlangen. 16 January they were 
“Zur Red gestellt, was sie bei dem Swertschmid zu erlang 


156 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


to Erlangen 17 February, 1527.°° With him were 
four disciples — Kilian Volkamer, Eukarius, a car- 
penter from Coburg, his servant Joachim, and a 
young man named Sebastian *° — and together they 
visited Grundlach, exhorting and rebaptizing.®*° At 
Eltersdorf he preached and rebaptized Vogel to- 
gether with two of his parishioners.° The Council 
got wind of his presence. At Grundlach he and 
his four followers were seized during the night and 
invited to betake themselves from Nuremberg terri- 
tory. As they started south a warning against them 
was sent to Augsburg, Ulm, and Regensburg.” 
Most important among his converts was the pas- 
tor at Eltersdorf. Vogel had been a student under 
Luther, had been the first Evangelical pastor at 
Bopfingen and had removed thence in 1524 to EI- 
tersdorf. He had known and talked with Hut when 
the latter was working in Nuremberg,” but appar- 


Gehandelt haben.” (Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der 
“drei gottlosen Maler,” p. 237.) A man called in the docu- 
ments Schmidt at ‘“Altenerlang” was implicated with other 
“ Anabaptists” in the testimony of one Spiegel. (Wappler, 
Tauferbewegung in Thiiringen, p. 234.) If any conclusions may 
be drawn from the similarity of names, it may not be too bold 
to predicate a direct connection between Hut and the painters. 

88 Testimony of Spiegel in Wappler, ibid. pp. 234 et seq. 
He did not carry out the program, however, as he reached 
Augsburg only in March, 1527. (See Meyer, p. 224.) 

89 Wappler, ibid., pp. 245 et seq. 

90 Will, 'p. 1222; 

91 Meyer, p. 230. 

92 Will, pp. 222 et seq. 

93 “Den Pfarrer von Eltersdorff hab er wol kennet.” 
-.. “Der von Elterszdorff sey ettlich malen bey im zu Nuern- 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION 157 


ently did not arouse the suspicions of the authori- 
ties until January of the year 1527.°* At that time 
the Council received a complaint concerning a pam- 
phlet which he had written attacking the people of 
his former parish at Bopfingen.”” These had re- 
turned to their earlier allegiance to the Catholic 
Church and had thus given occasion for this rather 
bitter reproof. In it he had also characterized with 
derisive epithets the Catholic princes who had come 
together for a conference at Regensburg. Because 
of this he was cited before the Nuremberg Council 
and warned to moderate his language both in 
preaching and in writing, else would he be severely 


berg, all da er gearbait gewesen, haben mit ainander vom 
evangelium geredt.” (Meyer, p. 243.) 

94 Soden, p. 278. Will (p. 73) says that he aroused the 
peasants and was attempting to raise sedition at the time of 
the peasants’ uprising; and Roth (Nirnberg, p. 257) follows 
Will. There is probably some truth in the charge. Hut had 
preached sedition to the peasants at Bibra in the summer of 
1525, telling them that the time was ripe for them to strike down 
their rulers, and Vogel may have done the same. But Will 
(following Miillner) tends, I think, to overstate the seditious 
nature of the propaganda of these leaders of the radical move- 
ment. 

95 This pamphlet — “ Aym trostlicher sendbrieff und Christ- 
liche ermannung zum Evangelio an eyn Erbarn Radt und gantze 
gemayn zu Bopfingen’”—was reprinted in 1717 as a good 
Evangelical tract. (Keller, Staupitz, p. 228, n. 2.) Will wonders 
that a pamphlet so thoroughly Evangelical could have come 
from Vogel’s pen in the very year that his errors and sedition 
came to light. He says of it (p. 77): “Es ist ein merkwurdiges 
Sendschreiben von der Bestandigkeit in der evangelischen War- 
heit an die Gemeine zu Bopfingen, und zu verwundern, das es 
noch so gut evangelisch abgefasst ist; da doch Vogels irrthumer 
und Aufruhr schon in dem Jahr ausgebrochen in welchem er 
diese Schreiben herausgab.” 


158 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


dealt with.°° This warning seems to have passed 
unheeded. On 22 March he was again brought 
before the authorities. Soden suggests that it was 
on account of this same pamphlet.*” It seems more 
likely, however, that the writing of the tract and 
the complaint which it called forth merely served 
to call attention to other more serious offenses.** 
The Council, communicating with Duke Casimir of 
Brandenburg concerning him, makes no mention of 
the pamphlet.*® In this letter the Duke is advised 
that the pastor had been found guilty of a number 
of unchristian errors regarding baptism, the Eu- 
charist, and other articles of faith. For this reason 
he had been cited a number of times before the 
Council and examined, but had each time denied 
such charges. Careful inquest had then been made 
and he was found guilty of a number of dangerous 
practices. He was, therefore, arrested and it was 
learned that he had entered with others into a 
“new, troublesome, unchristian league against all 
authorities, which they intend to root out.” As a 
sign of such league they had adopted rebaptism. 
The whole affair had been kept secret since they 
feared that, should it become known, they would 
be apprehended as ring-leaders in the sedition. 
They said that Christ would soon return to earth and 

86 Soden, p. 278; Roth, Nirnberg, p. 257. 

97 Soden, p. 278. 

98 Cf. Ludewig, Die Politik Niirnbergs, p. 76. 


%9 Letter of 26 Mar., 1527. Pub. in Wappler, Téuferbe- 
wegung in Thiiringen, pp. 245 et seq. 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION I59 


establish a temporal kingdom and that he would 
place in their hands the sword of righteousness for 
the destruction of all civil authorities who refused 
to be baptized and join their league.*°° 

Vogel’s crimes seemed to the Council to merit 
for him the extreme penalty. On the same day in 
which the above-mentioned letter was written he 
was beheaded. This sentence seems excessively 
harsh, but there are several considerations which 
render the action of the authorities at least partially 
comprehensible. Vogel had connected himself with 
the group at Altenerlangen.*” ‘Trials of ‘“ Anabap- 
tists”? in surrounding territories, especially at 
K6nigsberg, during the early months of 1527 had 
shown how far-reaching was the influence of Hut 
and had implicated Vogel in what seemed to be a 
dangerous society, destructive alike of civil and 
ecclesiastical authority.°° From Hut’s record dur- 
ing the peasants’ revolt it was not difficult to arrive 
at such a conclusion. Wappler, in reviewing the 
evidence, concludes that the tenets of this group 
of radicals were seditious.’°* Fantastic notions 
were being propagated among the people. It was 
told how the Turk would soon enter Germany; 
that there would be a decisive battle in which all 


100 There follows a description of Hut and his four com- 
panions, and also the names of several subjects of the Mar- 
grave whom Vogel has implicated. 

101 Wappler, zbid., p. 232. 

102 See the Urgichten in Wappler, pp. 228-258. Cf. also 
Wappler, Stellung Kursachsens und Hessens, pp. 2 et sqq. 

103 Wappler, Tauferbewegung in Thuringen, p. 33. 


160 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


the princes, nobles, and ecclesiastics would be put 
to the sword, while the true believers (those who 
joined their sect) would remain; that Christ was 
coming within one or two years to set up a tem- 
poral kingdom to reign with the faithful. The con- 
fessions of such of these folk as came into clash 
with the authorities are full of such ideas. To- 
day they would be classed as vagaries of religious 
fanaticism rather than as seditious utterances, but 
in the sixteenth century other assumptions under- 
lay men’s thinking. The medieval notion of the 
Antichrist and of Gog and Magog was still potent. 
Luther believed the Pope was Antichrist and he 
sometimes identified the Turks with Gog and 
Magog. Many instances there are, too, in his let- 
ters where he exclaims upon the times and says 
the end of the world must surely be at hand. The 
notion of a catastrophic ending of the world was 
then by no means confined to the radicals. Ac- 
count must also be taken of the prevailing judicial 
procedure. Suspects were examined under torture 
and confessions extorted from them by leading 
questions." It is scarcely to be wondered at that 
some, in fear of the strappado, were induced to 
testify to plots of sedition. And in the case of 
those who, despite torture, steadfastly affirmed that 

104 Urgichten in Wappler, ibid., esp. pp. 229, 231, 235, 242, 
243, 244. See, too, the statement of the Bishop of Bamberg, 
tbid., p. 247. 


105 Tnstructive is the testimony of Veit and Martin Weischen- 
felder at their trial. The third and fourth questions asked 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION I61 


there was no league against the civil power, it was 
always an easy assumption that Satan gave strength 
to conceal the truth, just as Luther was sure that 
those who were burned went steadfastly to their 
death because strengthened by the prince of evil. 
The Nuremberg authorities had another motive 
for drastic action at this time. Under judicial 
questioning one of the sectaries had recently testi- 
fied that the decisive battle for the overthrow of 
existing government was to be fought in Nurem- 


them were as follows: “... wie doch ir anschleg gewest sein, 
gegen der oberkeit furzunemen, dasselbig eigentlich zusagen, in 
welcher zeit und in welcherlei weiss? ” and “ wo sie doch geschutz 
oder anders wolten genomen haben, damit sie ir furnemen 
gegen den hern hetten volenden mogen....’ (Wappler, 
Téuferbewegung in Thiiringen, p. 241). The report of Veit’s 
answers to these questions is in part as follows: Zum dritten 
ist er etwas heftig angezogen mit der peinligkeit (the italics 
are in every case mine) der anschleg halb wider die obrigkeit, 
aber nichts anders sagen wollen, dan das der taufer inen gesagt 
habe, noch anderthalb jar were auf die zukunft des Hern. 
Aber der Turck wurde in dem jar regiren, und so er keme, 
welche dan den willen des himlischen vaters theten, wurden 
bleiben und die fursten und die hern und alle, die den willen 
des himlischen vaters nit theten, zu tod schlahen. Nu ist er 
gefragt, welchs derselb wil sein sol des himlischen vaters. Darzu 
sagt er, die wider die gebot Gottes theten, die wurden erschlagen 
werden, und hat kein anders wollen sagen, uber das er dreumal 
aufgezogen, das hab sie der taufer gelert und geweist; sei es 
unrecht, so solt es Got erbarmen. 

“Ttem ist er gefragt, warumb sie doch so heimlich mit 
verschlossner thur mit solicher sachen sind umbgangen. Darauf 
er geantwurt, sie hetten besorgt, man wurd sie alle erwurgen, 
so man des gewar wurde. 

“Zum vierten des geschutz halben sagt er, der taufer hab 
ine gar von niemant kein vertrostung angezeigt, sonder het 
geredt, das, das er sie leret, het er von Got.” (Jbid., p. 242.) 

The testimony of Martin was similar to that of Veit. After 


162 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


berg.*°° Deeply stirred by this report the Council 
took measures to stamp out the propaganda of 
such teachers. 

Such considerations may serve to explain the 
execution of Vogel. However much doubt may to- 
day be cast upon some of the charges brought 
against these overzealous religionists, and however 
much hesitation may be felt in postulating among 
them a society organized for the propagation of 
sedition,*°’ there can be no doubt that the authori- 
ties who had to cope with the situation were con- 
vinced that a real peril impended and were honest 
in their conviction that strong measures of repres- 


denying once that he had ever heard anything regarding any 
intended attack on the civil power, they started to torture him 
again. “Als man ine hat anziehen wollen, hat er gesagt und 
aufs hochst verneint, das ime der taufer nichts davon gesagt, 
das man fursten und hern zu tod schlahen, auch kein ort benant, 
da sie zusamenkomen solten. Darauf wolt er sterben. Er woll 
niemand beliegen oder sich ehr zureissen lassen.” (Jbid., p. 243.) 

The torture of the strappado, mentioned in the passage 
quoted, consisted in tying the hands of the victim behind his 
back with a rope, the other end of which was carried over a 
pulley in the ceiling. By this means he was raised and lowered, 
the sharpness of the torture being regulated somewhat by the 
rapidity and jerkiness with which the operation was performed 
or by the attaching of weights to the victim’s feet. It was one 
of the most effective forms of torture devised, in an age fertile 
in such inventions! 

106 Wappler, Tduferbewegung in Thiiringen, p. 247. 

107 That there was no league against the civil power, 
though considerable loose talking regarding it, is certainly to 
be inferred from Hut’s statements at his various hearings at 
Augsburg. Cf. Meyer, esp. p. 227 (Urgicht of 16 Sept., 1527) 
“er hab den bruedern furgehalten vom aid, wa sy ain oberkait 
forder zu schweren in gemain stat und burgerlichen sachen, 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION 163 


sion were necessary.’°> The times were such that 
calm judgment was scarcely possible. It is regret- 
table, however, that in times of strife the men who 
are most sure that they are right seem ever ready 
to prove their championship of truth by the logic 
of the club, and so it is unfortunate that the rep- 
resentatives of orthodoxy, Lutheran as well as 
Catholic, quickly saw in this socio-religious propa- 
ganda an attack upon both Church and State 
and were so ready to meet it with force. For 
Luther’s words, where he urged that the spirits 
should be allowed to fight it out among themselves 
and that God’s Word must alone contend in such 
affairs, were still ringing in men’s ears as the exe- 


das got solhs nit verpoten hab, und das sy der Oberkait sollen 
gehorsam sein, dann etlich hetten vernaint, Christen sollen nit 
fechten noch in krieg ziehen, hette er inen dagegen die schrift 
anzaigt, das sy solhs, diweil sy under der oberkait sein wolten, 
zu thun schuldig wern, wie auch Christus gethan und sich under 
die oberkait begegen hete, wa sy aber solhs nit thun wolten, 
mochten sy verkauffen, was sy hetten und weck ziehen.” 

108 See, for instance, the letter of the Nuremberg Council 


to the Margrave of Brandenburg, 23 Sept.: ‘Dann unnsers 
achtens hinter dieser verpundtnus mer schendlichs giffts, dann 
sich yemand vermutten mag verporgen ligt.” (Nicoladoni, 


Johannes Biinderlin, p. 232.) See also sentence on Hut (6 Dec.) 
in Meyer, p. 253, and Eck to Duke George of Saxony (27 
Nov.) in Seidemann, p. 150: “dann gar sorgklich ist Dise 
sect, unnd wie mein g. h. unnd seine rat erwegen, mer schadens 
da zu férchten, dann bey der iiingst peiirischen auffrur; dann 
dise sect wurtselt ein in stetten: wann nun die auffrur anging, 
wurde die in stetten sich erheben: da wurden sy geschitz, pulver 
und harnisch, auch kriegs geiibte knecht haben: unnd wurd 
das pauren volck auff dem lannd, vie vor zu fallenn: wurd es 
alles unnder ibersich geen, wider die geistlichkeit, fiirsten und 
Adel.” 


164 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


cutioner’s sword cut short the life of one who 
thought and taught on religious subjects other than 
did the authorities in whose territories he lived. 

Evidence adduced at Vogel’s trial pointed clearly 
to the existence of a considerable group of radicals 
in Nuremberg territory, and the fear of further 
evil consequences spurred the authorities to action. 

Jacob Dolmann was implicated by Vogel at his 
trial. He was therefore brought before the Coun- 
cil and examined, but was able to clear himself, 
though special watch was kept to see that his future 
utterances gave no further cause for complaint.*® 
Search made to ascertain the extent of the error 
was rewarded by the apprehension of a number of 
‘poor peasant folk who had not themselves rebap- 
tized but had been led astray by leaders of the 
sect, because of simplicity rather than that they 
were possessed of an evil nature or were a party 
to the conditions of the league.” "'° These people 
the Council did not consider dangerous and appar- 
ently took no measures against them. That the au- 
thorities were fully alive to the situation, however, 
is shown by their correspondence with other south 
German towns during 1527 and the early part of 
the following year."* 


100} SOCen 1 27a: 

110 Council to Margrave of Brandenburg, 23 Sept., 1527 
(Nicoladoni, p. 232). See also Seckendorff to Margrave of 
Brandenburg, 13 Sept., 1527 (Nicoladoni p. 225). 

111 Ludewig, G., Die Politik ie Maat im Zeitalter der 
Reformation, p. 77. 


TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION 165 


When it was learned that Hut had been caught 
in Augsburg in September, that city was communi- 
cated with in the hope that from him some informa- 
tion might be elicited concerning the movement in 
and about Nuremberg. The testimony extracted 
from him was of little value. The Augsburg Coun- 
cil, in sending it, tried to explain the meagreness 
of the report on the ground that he had not told 
the whole truth.” The substance of that confes- 
sion, in so far as it touched upon his relations with 
Nuremberg, has already been discussed. It 
served to show how great was his activity in and 
about the city and confirmed the Council in its 
belief that everything possible should be done to 
root out of the “ new poisonous sect of Anabaptists,” 
both for the “ honor of God ” and for the “ common 
good.” 114 

Up to this point action against the sectaries in 
Evangelical lands was occasional and sporadic, 
merely a groping toward a consistent and settled 


112 Jorg, Deutschland in der Revolutions-Periode von 1522 
bis 1526, p. 699, note. The “ Urgicht” is in Meyer, pp. 229 
et sqq. 

113 In addition to Denck he there mentioned Vogel, Dol- 
mann, and a certain Leonhard Dorfbrunner from Nuremberg, 
who had become a leader of the sectaries. (Meyer, p. 230.) 
But the latter’s activities seem not to have been connected in 
any way directly with the city of Nuremberg. (Cf. Urgicht of 
Dorfbrunner, Nicoladoni, pp. 205 et sqq.) 

114 Other hints there are of radical activity in and about 
Nuremberg during the year 1527. It is stated that Denck and 
Hiatzer stopped there on their way to Augsburg after their 
banishment from Worms in July. (Roth, Augsburg, I, p. 231; 


166 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


policy. The following year, 1528, will mark a 
notable advance toward the perfecting of the policy 
which was to be pursued in later years. 


Kolde, p. 63, note.) But we see Ziirich to Augsburg (Egli, Acten- 
sammlung, no. 1247) where mention is made of their being in 
Ziirich. If they went from Worms to Ziirich it would seem 
to cast a possible doubt on their visit to Nuremberg on their 
way to Augsburg. A letter from Venatorius to Pirkheimer, 25 
April, concerning the sectaries and their tenets serves further 
to indicate the activity of this group and the interest and ap- 
prehension they were arousing. (Opera Pirkheimeri, pp. 244 
et seq.) 


CHAPTER VI 
DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 


From the preceding discussion it should now be 
evident that, in Evangelical as well as in Catholic 
states, the conviction was ever deepening that dis- 
sent must be crushed out at all costs. If a milder 
policy was pursued in the former than in the latter, 
it was rather because of circumstances than be- 
cause in these states divided loyalty in religious 
affiliation was looked upon with more friendly 
spirit. We have seen how, gradually under the 
stress of need, a theory of repression was evolved, 
and how tentative steps were taken looking toward 
a policy of state coercion — first, because these 
people were seditious, but also because their teach- 
ing was blasphemous, and it is the duty of the 
prince to maintain the first table of the Mosaic Law 
as zealously as the second.’ Even were a ruler dis- 
posed to act leniently, practical necessity tended 
always to induce concurrent action among the vari- 
ous states; persecution in one state served only to 
drive the separatists into states where there were 
no drastic laws against them. Thus in general 
every state felt itself obliged, as a measure of pro- 
tection, to devise means of combating their spread 


1 Vide supra, p. 117, et sqq. 
167 


168 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


and influence. However much a prince or town 
council might hesitate to apply penalties to these 
seemingly erratic folk no responsible authority 
would long tolerate with equanimity having its ter- 
ritory, because of leniency, made the dumping 
ground for all the “ undesirables” from neighbor- 
ing states. In nearly every case, however, the civil 
authorities resorted to extreme action only after 
milder methods in the form of warnings and in- 
struction failed to halt the activity of the leaders. 
Thus the edicts at Zurich came after disputations 
between Zwingli and the radicals; at Strassburg 
action was taken after a debate with Denck seemed 
to have proved unavailing; at Augsburg after 
Urbanus Rhegius had, through pamphlets and from 
the pulpit, warned against the new sectaries and, 
for the strengthening of the faithful, refuted their 
tenets... At Nuremberg we have seen the same 
method employed ever since Greiffenberger was 
charged with heterodox utterances in 1523. Even 
after comprehensive edicts had been issued against 
the “ Anabaptists ” by neighboring cities, the policy 
of dealing individually with such of the members 
of the sects as could be found was continued. 
In the letter to George of Brandenburg-Ansbach, in 


2 Important is his pamphlet: ‘‘ Wider den newen Taufforden | 
notwendige Warnung an alle Christgleubigen Durch die diener 
des Evangelii zu Augsburg.” (Pub. 6 Sept., 1527.) In this 
he says it is the duty of the preachers to meet the wolves that 
are creeping in with the sword of the Holy Spirit (p. Aiii 
verso). But the Council soon found other means. 


DISSENH MUST) BE “GRU S HED) (1T60 


which the necessity of devising measures for com- 
bating the activities of the sectaries was pointed 
out, the Council stated that it had decided to issue 
a warning to the citizens in its territories. With the 
letter was enclosed a copy of this warning, not to 
indicate a policy for the Margrave to pursue, but 
rather out of good will and that he might have 
greater reason to act advisedly in the matter.” 

This letter, written in the fall of 1527, seems to 
mark the beginning of concurrent action on the 
part of Nuremberg and Brandenburg-Ansbach in 
the formation of a definite policy to be pursued 
relative to the radicals. Within a few months 
there proceeded from the chancelleries of both 
states comprehensive and carefully drawn instruc- 
tions for their pastors advising them how, in 
their preaching, to combat the new errors, “ for 
whoever brings to light the fickle spirit has already 
more than half conquered it.”* The Instruction 
of Duke George was issued 3 January, 1528; ° 
that from the Council of Nuremberg is undated.° 

8 The letter is published by Nicoladoni, p. 232. 

4 Grundtliche Untterrichtung, p. Ev. verso. 

5 It is entitled “ Ein kurtze untterricht / den Pfarherrn und 
Predigern / Inn meiner gnedigen Herrn der Marggraffen zu 
Branndenburg, etc., Fiirstenthumben un Landen / hieniden in 
Francken und auff dem Gebirg verordent / wes sie das volck 
wider etliche verfiirische lere / der widertauffer / an den Feyer- 
tagen auff der Canntzel / zum getreiilichsten und besten / auss 
Gétlicher schrifft vermanen / und unterrichten sollen.” And at 
the end —“ Beschehen am Suntag nach dem Newen Jarsstag / 


UA be Be 
6 The full title of this pamphlet is “ Grundtliche untterrich- 


170 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


That both pamphlets were published at about the 
same time can be confidently affirmed. Some direct 
connection between the printed Instruction which 
has come down to us and the warning mentioned 
by the Council in the letter to the Margrave on 
23 September might at first be assumed. The In- 
struction, however, contains an allusion to the death 
of Hut, which occurred early in December, 1527," 
and cannot, therefore, have been identical with the 
warning issued in the fall. The one that is pre- 
served is apparently the more comprehensive state- 
ment, conceived in an attempt to make an end 
finally of unauthorized propaganda. It indicates 
a strong disposition on the part of the Nuremberg- 
ers to eradicate error by pacific means. The some- 
what drastic action of 1525, and the still more sum- 
mary punishment of Vogel, had not established a 
precedent for repression, nor had there been any 
comprehensive edicts, such as had gone forth from 
the Councils of some of the other cities, issued 
against the sectaries. Such measures as were 
adopted were defensive in character; greater care 
tung /eins ebern Rats der Statt Niirmberg / Welcher gestalt / 
jre Pfarrher un Prediger in den Stetten un auff dem Land / das 
volck / wider etliche verfiirische lere der Widertauffer / in jren 
predigen auss heyliger Gotlicher schrifft / zum getreiilichsten 
ermanen unnd unterrichten sollen.” At the end “ Gedriickt zu 
Nirmberg durch Jobst Gutknecht.” 

7 P. D. recto. For a discussion of the date of this Unter- 
richt, see Will, pp. 90 et seg. Will seems to think that the paper 


was written by Wenceslaus Link; and Roth, Nurnberg (p. 260), 
follows him in this. 


DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED I7I 


was exercised to exclude radicals exiled from other 
states and cities. Especial anxiety was manifested 
concerning exiles from Augsburg, whence it was 
learned that several, driven out probably as a re- 
sult of the Edict of 11 October, were intending to 
come to Nuremberg.’ Finally, more careful meas- 
ures were taken for the suppression of heretical 
books. The above-mentioned Instruction was to 
complete the work. It contains: (1) a mention of 
certain warnings and injunctions previously issued 
by the Council relative to the ‘‘ Anabaptists ”’; *° 
(2) a short warning against “ Anabaptism’”’; (3) 
the true teaching regarding baptism, discussed at 
length with copious citations from Scripture; (4) 
the doctrines of the sectaries, gathered under twelve 
heads; (5) refutation of these doctrines. 

‘““We have,” declared the Council, “ with great 
difficulty and labor, with great danger to life and 
limb, honor and possessions, freed ourselves by the 
grace of God from the laws of the Pope, in which 
he commands and forbids that which God neither 
commanded nor forbade. We have made ourselves 
sure in our consciences and now shall such igno- 


8 Roth, Nurnberg, p. 260. See also Aigentliche beschreibung 
der handlungen, so sich mit den widerteufern zu Augsburg 
zugetragen und verlaufen hat.’ Ed. by Myer in Z. K. G,, 17, 
p. 257. 

9 Roth, Nirnberg, p. 260. 

10 The Council contents itself with the mere mention that 
such warnings have been issued (p. Aii verso). Whether there 
were any other than those mentioned in the earlier pages of 
this study it has been impossible to discover. 


172 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


rant, inconstant, seditious folk again set up a like 
tyranny over our consciences by holding infant 
baptism to be powerless and against Scripture? ” ** 
These fanatics have nothing at the root of their 
doctrine but pure wantonness and violence.’” Theirs 
is the most horrible blasphemy.” ‘The true baptism 
is forsaken and a baptism of the devil is put in its 
place, the devil is therefore their God, whom they 
worship and follow.** In their hearts is murder, 
robbery and sedition; they would murder all the 
pious and make themselves the possessors of the 
earth. Their leaders were those who incited the 
peasants to sedition and must be guarded against 
as the real fomenters of attack upon constituted 
authority.” 

The Instruction presents, then, a bitter arraign- 
ment of the sectaries as seditious and blasphemous, 
but there is no hint as to the means to be employed 
in dealing with them in case instruction failed to 
meet the issue. But such a condemnation of the 
leaders and teachings carries with it the necessity 
of developing a more active policy of suppression. 
This question it was imperative that the Council 
Should face definitely in the near future. On 4 
January, 1528, there was promulgated an imperial 
mandate commanding all civil authorities and 
magistrates to guard more earnestly against this 
error of “ Anabaptism”’; to forbid such practices 

AP al) verso: 14 P. Eni verso. 


12 P; E ‘recto. 15 Pp. Ev recto ez seq. 
13 P, Eiii recto. 


DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 173 


as ‘“ Anabaptists ” were indulging in; to warn and 
instruct their subjects from the pulpits, and to pro- 
ceed against those who persisted in error with such 
penalties as might be found necessary. If they 
failed in this they would jointly and severally in- 
cur high displeasure and penalties from the Em- 
peror.*® 

The issuance of this mandate ushered in a new 
period in the repression of separatist activity. Defi- 
nite measures against the sectaries now became a 
matter not only of expediency, but of obedience to 
the expressed commands of the Emperor. On 17 
January the Elector of Saxony issued an order 
threatening with serious penalites [“‘ wirklicher und 
ernster straff’’] those who persisted in error.” 
Other states quickly promulgated like decrees, — 
Duke George of Saxony on 7 January,’® Arch- 
bishop Albert of Mainz on 31 January,’® Archduke 
Ferdinand on 24 February.*° These were, in gen- 
eral based upon former edicts, which were now ex- 
tended and in some cases made more drastic. The 
action which most vitally influenced decisions at 
Nuremberg was that taken by the Swabian League 
on 16 February.** At Augsburg the League on that 


16 Mandate pub. in Wappler, Taduferbewegung in Thiiringen, 
pp. 268 et seq. 

17 Pub. in Wappler, Inquisition und Ketzerprozess, pp. 164 
et seq. 

18 Wappler, Stellung Kursachsens und Hessens, p. §. 

19 Mandate in Wappler, Stellung Kursachsens und Hessens, 
pp. 236 et sqq. 

20 Beck, p. 60, note 1. 

“1 Urkunden zur Geschichte des schwabischen Bundes, Vol. 


174 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


date decreed that the sectaries were to be hunted 
down by armed bands — one hundred knights for 
each quarter —in the same way as were the peas- 
ants during the revolt of 1525. They were to be 
summarily put to death without process of law. 
Those who had recanted were to be beheaded, those 
who remained firm were to be burned. Women 
were to be drowned or burned. This decree was 
noticeably lacking in the quality of mercy, and 
against such a harsh decision the representative of 
Nuremberg, Volkamer, protested vigorously. The 
members of the Nuremberg Council were unwilling 
to give their consent to the forging of a weapon 
which in Catholic states might be turned against 
their own co-religionists, as had already been done, 
they contended, in the bishopric of Wiirzburg.” 
Nothing could be more simple than to capture the 
sheep under the appearance of hunting down the 
wolves. A ready means would be at hand to dis- 
pose of Evangelical preachers. In their judgment 
it would, therefore, be sufficient to examine separa- 
tists on one point only, that of rebaptism.?* Such 
II, pp. 316 et seg. Schornbaum, Zur Politik des Markgrafen 
Georg von Brandenburg, pp. 17 et seqg., and esp. pp. 264 et seq., 
Will, pp. 224 et sqg. (excerpt from Miillner’s Annals). 

22 Will, p. 225. See, too, the letter of Eck to Duke George 
of Saxony mentioned above, op. cit. pp. 150 et seg., where is 
recounted the execution of heretics, Lutheran and “ Anabaptist,” 
in Catholic lands. 

23 Ibid., p. 225; Schornbaum, p. 265. Schornbaum has ex- 


amined the manuscript documents bearing on this incident and 
gives a brief but apparently exact account of it. 


DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 175 


a solution was born, not of a spirit of tolerance, 
but of a policy of toleration dictated by fear that 
the same measures taken against the sectaries might 
be employed against themselves. There was, how- 
ever, at least on the part of some, a real conviction 
that the measure proposed for the consideration of 
the League was too severe. Those who recanted 
should, members of the Council insisted, suffer only 
light punishment, and no one should be put to 
death without a hearing in a court of law.” 

In this protest Volkamer acted for the Council 
in close accord with the two delegates from the 
Duchy of Brandenburg-Ansbach, Hans von Schwar- 
zenberg and George Volger.** On 4 March he was 
instructed to seek concurrent action on the part 
of other states, notably Hesse and the Palatinate, 
in an attempt to secure a milder policy. These 
attempts failed, however, to secure any abatement 
of the terms of the edict. The efforts of Duke 
George and the Council of Nuremberg were there- 
upon concentrated upon an attempt to get their 
candidate chosen as leader of the hundred knights 
in their quarter, and thus assure a liberal execution 
of the mandate. In this way they hoped to escape 
the danger which seemed to them to threaten the 
Evangelical faith; and in this plan they were suc- 
cessful.”° 

Though the Council of Nuremberg was not ready 


24 Will, p. 227; Schornbaum, p. 265. 
25 Schornbaum, pp. 265 et seq. 
26 Schornbaum, pp. 266 ef seq. 


176 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


to resort to such extreme measures as those adopted 
by the Swabian League, its members held no less 
strongly the conviction that the sectaries must be 
suppressed. Some few who were apprehended dur- 
ing the spring of 1528 were forced either to recant 
or to leave the territory.” 

At the same time a church visitation, on lines 
similar to those marked out by the Saxon visita- 
tion, was being planned.** George of Brandenburg- 
Ansbach had discussed such a visitation with 
Elector John of Saxony in the fall of 1527. In the 
spring he was commencing active measures to make 
it a reality when, at the instance of Spengler, the 
Nurembergers proposed joint action.*® This was 
agreed upon, and in June representatives of the two 
states met at Schwabach to discuss the question 
and to draw up the Articles of Visitation.*® Ac- 
cording to the Instructions the visitors were to con- 
cern themselves with the regulation of the lives of 
the clergy and with the defining and ordering of 
the office of preacher. Further, there was to be 
instruction for the clergy in the fundamentals of 
doctrine.** The visitors were to see that the abuses 
of “ Papists” and the so-called ‘“ Evangelicals ” 
were abolished, and were to have oversight over the 
installation of new pastors.** In other words, as in 

27 Will, pp. 223 et seq.; Soden, p. 310. 

28 See for this Westermayer, Die brandenburgisch-niirn- 
bergische Kirchenvisitation und Kirchenordnung. 


29 (1 bidi? DP. 2 et Sad. BAM O20 eens: 
BO TDI DDih Men sed. Se LUI Ce vEG: 


DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 177 


Saxony the year previously, there was to be unity 
of teaching and uniformity of ceremony, enforced 
by the agents of the civil power.** 

At Nuremberg the competence of the Council to 
assume control over such matters was unquestioned. 
This action was entirely in line with that taken in 
1525, at the time of the final break with Rome. It 
is the duty of the civil magistrate, stated the Coun- 
cil in a letter defending this visitation, before God 
and the world to see not only that its subjects are 
maintained in the Word of God and the gospel, but 
also to see that errors, present and to come, touch- 
ing holy belief and religion, are done away. Divi- 
sions, quarrels, sedition are to be guarded against 
and citizens are to be protected both in body and 
soul. Nor has the civil authority the right to wait 
upon a church council or the pleasure of any other 
state in this matter; each state, since it has this 
duty laid upon it by God, must give account for 
itself before God.** 

With such a theory, with an impending visitation 
designed to discover any irregularity in religious 
profession and having as one of its avowed objects 


83 Jbid., p. 14. 

34 City of Nuremberg to the rulers of the Palatinate and 
Bavaria, 30 Oct., 1528. Pub. by Gerhard Kolde in B. B. K. G. 
19, p. 278. In the letter the statement is made that each one 
must stand before Christ at the judgment and give account for 
himself, of his belief, his works, and his life. But the Council 
is here arguing for magistrates rather than for individuals, else 
how would a state have the duty of protecting its subjects in 
body and soul. 


178 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


the securing and maintaining of uniformity, and 
with the ever increasing need of active measures 
against sectaries because of the stiffening policy of 
surrounding states, the Council could not now hesi- 
tate long before employing measures similar to those 
already in force elsewhere. This immediately raised 
questions regarding the penalties to be imposed. 
The imperial edict by implication, and the decree 
of the Swabian League by definite statement, de- 
manded capital punishment for dissent. The 
Lutherans were not yet ready, however, to put these 
people to death unless it could be shown that they 
held tenets injurious to the state, and it was be- 
coming increasingly clear that in many cases dis- 
sent involved questions of religion only and that 
there was no disposition on the part of the sec- 
taries to deny the authority of the civil magistrate 
in the performance of his secular functions. 

Such is the problem with which the Nuremberg- 
ers were faced in the summer of 1528. In their 
attempt to solve it they appealed to the two great 
leaders of the Evangelical movement in Germany 
— Luther and Johann Brenz. Luther’s reply forms 
part of a letter to Wenceslaus Link; the reply 
of Brenz is a document of some fifteen pages. It 
should be pointed out that there is no direct evi- 
dence which makes absolutely certain that these 
two opinions were written in response to an official 
request from Nuremberg, but when all the circum- 
stances involved are considered the conclusion that 


DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 179 


such is the case seems entirely justified.*’ Both 
statements were written early in July; both were 
directed to the same general question; both were 
explicit in statement —the carefully wrought-out 
expression of men who were weighing their words; 


35 As to Luther’s letter there is some question, both as 
regards its date and the person to whom it was addressed (cf. 
Burr, p. 723, note 15). Recent writers, in referring to it, 
generally accept without comment the date as given in Enders 
(6, pp. 298 et sqqg.). See, for example, Kohler, p. 25, Paulus, 
p. 31 (but see also p. 115, note 2); Smith and Jacobs, Luther’s 
Correspondence, Vol. Il, p. 446; Faulkner, p. 150; Murray, 
Erasmus and Luther: Their Attitude to Toleration, p. 267. It 
may be worth while, however, to state the critical points in- 
volved. In his edition of Luther’s letters published in 1556, 
Aurifaber (II, pp. 381 et seg.) includes, under the date 14 
July, 1528, a letter to Link. He is followed by De Wette (III, 
pp. 347 et seq.) and Enders. The letter as a whole is translated 
in Walch (XVII, c. 2697 et sqq.) and is found also in German, 
but without date, in Reinhard, Beytrdge zu der Historie Frank- 
enlandes (1, pp. 145 et sqq.) As printed in these collections 
the letter is a long one of 146 lines. There is extant no manu- 
script copy of it as a whole. Lines 12 to 118, or parts thereof, 
appear separately in the extant MSS and, when dated, carry 
the date 27 May, 1530. To this there is one exception. The 
MS used by Schiitze in his edition of Luther’s letters, and 
which the editor thought was the original, is dated anno 1544 
post Johannem Baptistam (25 June). ‘These lines appear also, 
without date, in several of the early collections of Luther’s 
works (Cf. Wittenberg edition, XII, p. 211; Jena edition, VIII, 
p. 374). Whether or not this central portion, of which the 
passage of interest to us comprises lines 12 to 29, forms another 
and a later epistle Enders, in his critical comment, leaves un- 
- decided. But he is inclined strongly against this view by the 
fact that Reinhard found in the archives at Ansbach the copy 
from which he made his transcript, sent apparently contempo- 
raneously with the writing for the information of Duke 
George. This seems, therefore, to offer independent corrobora- 
tion to Aurifaber. 

Ov. the other hand Hartmann and Jager in their Johann 


180 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


the form of Brenz’s Bedenken clearly implies that 
it was in response to an official inquiry; Luther’s 
was in direct response to a query from Link, who 
was in close touch with the authorities in the city; 
this was the normal procedure resorted to fre- 
quently in such cases. Government action against 


Brenz (Vol. I, pp. 301 et seqg.), quote Brenz as saying that he 
had received from Luther, in response to a query regarding 
the punishment for dissent, a reply identical with lines 12 to 
29 in the letter which purports to be to Link. Going over the 
same ground some twenty years later (1862) for the briefer life 
of Brenz which he contributed to the Leben .... der Vater 
.... der lutherischen Kirche, Hartmann found no reason to 
modify this statement (p. 108). Enders lifts this supposed letter 
from Hartmann and Jager and prints it as a fragment under 
the caption Luthers Bedenken an Brenz wegen der Todesstrafe 
der Ketzer (7, p. 211), apparently quite unconscious of the 
fact that he had included the same material in the letter to 
Link, printed in the preceding volume. 

What is the solution of the problem? The weightiest reason 
for rejecting the dates of the MS copies is that Luther’s thought 
in this field had by 1530 proceeded much beyond the position 
taken in this letter. Since he was then ready to inflict the 
death penalty it is inconceivable that he could have then 
written as he did. As to whether the letter was written to 
Link or Brenz, Paulus (p. 115, note 2) dismisses summarily, as 
an error, the statement in Hartmann and Jager. These latter, 
however, wrote from manuscript sources, some of which remain 
still unpublished; their testimony cannot, therefore, be ignored. 
But they do discuss in few pages the attitude of Brenz toward 
the “ Anabaptists,” and in so doing pay little attention to chro- 
nology. They recognize no development in his thought; they 
are unaware of the correct date of his Bedenken, thinking that it 
was written late in 1529 and thus bringing it into close connec- 
tion with the correspondence between Brenz and Spengler on the 
same subject, in 1530. The supposed reply of Luther to him 
they embody in an analysis of his Bedenken and they quote 
him as saying, “ Das ist auch meine Meinung, die Obrigkeit soll 
mit Bescheidenheit, und nichts aus Tyrannei handeln.... Es 


DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED I8I 


the sectaries, recounted above, must have called 
forth, sooner or later, such statements, especially 
from Luther, and the situation in Nuremberg fur- 
nished an excellent occasion. On 12 May in a let- 
ter to Link he had written, “I have had many 
letters from other places also concerning the Ana- 


ist besser es wird vier oder zehnmal ein unrechter Glaube 
geduldet, denn nur einmal ein rechter verfolgt” (p. 302. The 
last sentence is quoted directly from Brenz’s Bedenken). It 
seems impossible that Brenz could have made such a statement 
at the time he wrote his Bedenken, for Luther argues for the 
banishment of “ pseudo-prophets and_ heretics’? whereas the 
whole tenor of Brenz’s argument is that only in the case of 
sedition might the government banish, and then not as pro- 
ceeding against a sect, but only against individuals. Any such 
direct correspondence between Luther and Brenz would be of 
extreme interest, but the authors of the life of Brenz give no 
hint as to where they found the letter, though they publish as 
appendices numerous letters either written or received by Brenz 
during this period. Until it is possible to follow them back to 
their source it is my judgment that their statement must be 
accepted with great reserve. They are not always accurate in 
their quotations; they include in the summary of Brenz’s Beden- 
ken material which is not found there (compare pp. 308-310 
with the Bedenken as printed in Bidenbach). That Enders 
publishes the fragment as from Luther to Brenz does not seem 
to me to carry much weight. His only authority is Hartmann 
and Jager, and he does not follow them very accurately. In 
his prefatory comment he says that Brenz wrote in the Bedenken, 
published in Bidenbach, that he had sought counsel from Luther 
and had received the reply in question. He seems to have failed 
to verify even that fact, since no such passage occurs in the 
Bedenken as printed. The editing of the fragment shows no 
such careful workmanship as was expended on the letter to 
Link, All things considered, I incline strongly to the judgment 
that the letter was written to Link in July of 1528. It is 
possible that, after the promulgation of the imperial mandate 
against the “ Anabaptists” at the second Diet of Spires in 1520, 
Brenz wrote to Luther for his views in the matter, that Luther 


182 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


baptists,” °° a comment which indicates that Link 
had even then approached him on the subject. Al- 
ready the arguments of Master Hans had been 
employed, in Evangelical as well as in Catholic 
lands, for the silencing of dissent. What should be 
the decision of the leader of the Evangelical party? 
It is forthcoming, on 14 July, in the following 
terms: 


“But as to your question whether the magistrate 
should put to death false prophets. I am rather slow 
to the judgment of blood, even where it is richly de- 
served. For in this matter the consequences, as ex- 
emplified among the Papists and, before Christ, among 
the Jews, terrify me. Wherever the law provided that 
pseudo-prophets and heretics should be put to death, in 
the course of time it has come about that only the most 
holy prophets and innocent people were sacrificed by 
the authority of that very law. Relying upon this, evil 
magistrates have made pseudo-prophets and heretics of 
whomsoever they pleased. I fear the same outcome 
among us, if once by a single precedent it could be 


sent him a copy of the letter which had previously been sent to 
Link, and that he could then concur in the sentiments therein 
expressed. 

The Bedenken of Brenz is entitled “Ob ein weltliche 
Obrigkeit in géttlichen und billichen Rechten die Wiedertaufer 
durch Feuer oder Schwert vom Leben zum Tod richten lassen 
moge?” It was several times reprinted and can be found ~ 
most easily perhaps in Bidenbach’s Consilia Theologica. A MS | 
copy, the only one known to be in existence, is in the possession 
of the Library of Cornell University. This MS supplies the 
correct date, 7 July, 1528. For a fuller discussion of this see 
the Bibliographical Note, pp. 203 et seq. 

86 Enders, 6, p. 263. 


DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 183 


proved right to put false leaders to death, as we now 
see among the Papists, who, by abuse of this law, 
shed innocent blood for the guilty. Therefore I am 
not ready to consent that false teachers should be put 
to death. It is enough to banish them. If posterity 
wishes to abuse this penalty their sin will be less and 
they will injure only themselves.” 


In this letter Luther shows that he has travelled 
far in the direction of persecution during the three 
years since he answered much the same question 
addressed to him by Spengler. At that time he 
did not consider the radicals as blasphemous; un- 
less they denied the authority of the civil magis- 
trate, the rule to be applied is that laid down by 
Jesus (Matt. 18:15-17). It is a matter to be 
dealt with by the religious community. By 1528, 
however, there was no question that false teachers 
should be punished by the civil authorities as the 
leaders of the religious community, but none the less 
acting in their civil capacity. He still hesitated to 
advise the death penalty, though his reluctance was 
more from fear that his own followers might suffer 
the consequences of placing such a weapon in the 
hands of the government than from any religious 
scruple against the employment of force. There 
was no question in his mind that some of these 
people merited death; and he hesitated not at all 
to counsel banishment. This was little more than 
a means of escaping the responsibility for frankly 
applying the death penalty. For in an age when 


184 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


banishment meant fearful privation and very prob- 
ably death to people proscribed as were the sec- 
taries, the death penalty would seem almost more 
humane.*’ 

This letter of Luther’s marks a period in the 
development of his thought regarding repression. 
It is, therefore, extremely important; but more in- 
teresting for our study is the reply of Brenz. A 
preacher in Swabian Halle (‘“‘ Schwabisch Hall ’’) 
and recognized leader of the Lutheran movement in 
southern Germany, his advice was much sought by 
George of Brandenburg-Ansbach, and he was like- 
wise in close touch with the situation in Nuremberg. 
His influence had already been exerted on the side 


87 The beneficium emigrandi for non-conforming minorities 
may seem like a considerable advance in the direction of 
leniency, and that is unquestionably true in the case of a 
minority sufficiently well established to have a safe place to 
which its members may migrate (cf. Volker, p. 234). This 
was not the case, however, with the sectaries of the Reforma- 
tion. They were everywhere proscribed. Moreover the vari- 
ous states had a way of warning neighboring states against 
any whom they had recently banished. (Strickler, Actensamm- 
lung I, no. 1878; Egli; Actensammlung, no. 1247; Rohrich, 
pp. 32 et seg.) Luther and his followers were probably en- 
tirely honest in looking upon banishment as less drastic than 
the death penalty. Their point of view is clear enough; sec- 
taries must simply conform to the true faith or betake them- 
selves hence. (Enders, 7, pp. 150 ef seg.) But Luther prob- 
ably never allowed himself to consider the consequences of 
such a policy. For its results from the standpoint of the sec- 
taries, see the pathetic letter of Denck to Cicolampadius (Keller, 
Ein Apostel der Wiedertéiufer, pp. 251 et seq.). The story of 
the wanderings and death of Sebastian Franck bears eloquent 
testimony to the suffering imposed by the sentence of banish- 
ment. 


DISSENT US TBE CRUSIB ED: 1185 


of moderation. During the peasant uprising he had 
written a pamphlet counselling leniency in dealing 
with revolting peasants.** Three years later, when 
he is asked for his judgment regarding the “ Ana- 
baptists ” and the policy to be adopted toward them, 
his reply is a carefully reasoned argument in 
which he embodies a strong plea for kindliness and 
forbearance. His viewpoint is much like that of 
Luther, when, a few years previously, he was claim- 
ing tolerance for his own faith. 

Brenz proposes to discuss the question from two 
points of view, and it may be well to follow his 
argument with some care. He first asks if Scrip- 
ture warrants the view that “ Anabaptists ” or other 
heretics are to be punished by the secular authority, 
and then whether the imperial law gives the right 
to condemn them to death. Sins are of two sorts, 
he says, spiritual and earthly. Under the former 
are to be included unbelief, doubt of God, despera- 
tion, misinterpretation of Scripture (simple heresy), 
secret envy, covetousness — those things which ap- 
pertain to God’s kingdom and which are in no way 
injurious to the peace of the civil community. 
Among the earthly sins are to be included treason, 
murder, robbery, theft, adultery, etc., which men- 
ace the peace of the state. Now, for the punishing 
of these two types of sin, God has ordained two 


88 Von Milderung der Fiirsten gegen die aufriihrischen Bauern, 
in “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” Vol. 
p EEO 


186 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


swords — for spiritual sins, the spiritual sword, 
which is the Word of God; for the sins of this 
world, the sword of the Emperor. Spiritual sins 
are so subtle, and the worldly sword so rude and 
carnal, that more harm than good is done by at- 
tempting to apply it against them. They are rather 
strengthened than weakened. The way to combat 
spiritual sins, which are usually bolstered up by 
texts from Holy Writ, is by clear argument to lay 
bare their falsity. So soon as the light of truth 
breaks in upon the lies, the prince of darkness must 
flee. The use of the carnal sword simply confirms 
heretics and unbelievers in their errors. For by 
using compulsion one does not remove the false 
basis in Scripture which they have built up, and 
they seem to be martyrs for the Word of God. The 
gospel and the Holy Scriptures alone should, there- 
fore, be used against heresy. 

Moreover, unbelievers and heretics may be just 
as good citizens of the state as those who hold the 
true faith. When they live in peace and perform 
the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, the 
civil magistrate has no right to punish them. 
Where Paul says the civil magistrate is a servant 
of God and an avenger to punish those who do evil, 
he means those who break the civil law, not those 
who are guilty of spiritual unbelief. Christ also 
teaches the same thing where he tells his disciples 
that the tares must be allowed to grow up with the 
wheat until the harvest (Matt. 13). When one 


DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 187 


punishes with the worldly sword, not alone the 
body is killed but the soul of the unbeliever also, 
and all possibility of winning the erring one from 
unbelief and error is destroyed. They should be 
avoided, as Paul teaches, but they should not be 
put to death. The heresy of the Anabaptists has 
been strengthened by no one thing more than by 
this attempt to employ the worldly sword in the 
realm of the spiritual. It has simply furthered the 
error. What is the sense in studying the Scriptures 
if heretics are to be silenced by force? In such 
case the “executioner would be the most learned 
doctor.” 

The Mosaic Law, which is invoked for the pun- 
ishment of heretics, has no longer any force. We 
live under another dispensation. There are many 
other commands of the Mosaic Law which we do 
not now consider binding. 

Some one will say, it is true that the clergy 
should not punish with the worldly sword, but does 
the same limitation apply to the civil magistrate? 
Should he not administer corporal punishment to 
the heretic? That the temporal sword should be 
confined to the punishment of secular offenses has 
already been shown. What has it to do with un- 
belief or heresy? Moreover, should one grant any 
such power to civil magistrates, we should soon 
find that true believers would be punished by un- 
believing rulers —a thing which happened in the 
case of the Arians. It would be ten times better 


188 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


that error should be tolerated than that true faith 
should be persecuted. 

It is urged further that Anabaptism is not mere 
heresy, but that it implies a denial of the functions 
of the state and thus becomes a menace to the civil 
authority. Anabaptists hold goods in common, re- 
fuse to swear allegiance to civil authority, and main- 
tain that no Christian may hold office. What of 
that? Like charges may be brought against the 
monks and priests, but no one in all these centuries 
has ever thought to fear tumult from them on any 
such grounds. If one is going to fear the gatherings 
of these Anabaptists, then must one forbid all gath- 
erings on market days and all church gatherings, 
on the ground that tumult might result? To be 
sure, there are evil spirits among them; let such be 
punished just as one would punish any evil-doers. 
But that is no reason for decreeing wholesale pun- 
ishment for all the innocent men and women who 
have fallen into this error. If they refuse to take 
the oath of obedience to the civil magistrate and 
will not perform their duties as citizens, they should 
be treated as foreigners who have never taken the 
oath of citizenship. “The highest penalty that 
one may properly impose on such a one is this, that 
he be forbidden the exercise of his, privileges as 
a citizen [birgerliche Hantierung]; any penalty 
above this is tyranny, violence, and lawlessness.” 

Let us turn in the second place to the imperial 
law, which is the most important base upon which 


DLS SENS Pipe OR US tke D 189 


the theory of the competence of the civil magistrate 
to punish Anabaptists is founded. By the provi- 
sions of this law of Honorius and Theodosius any 
one baptizing another, or any one who is rebap- 
tized, makes himself liable to the penalty of death. 
Such a law cannot possibly apply to the present 
Anabaptists. In the first place it was aimed par- 
ticularly at servants of the Church who rebaptized, 
and in the second place it must have been designed 
to cover some breach other than appears in the text. 
For Emperor Theodosius was a godly man, well 
versed in Scripture, and he would never have pro- 
mulgated a law so palpably contrary to right and to 
Holy Writ. Moreover the acts of other less godly 
emperors impose much lighter penalties for offenses 
as great or even very much greater, such as apos- 
tacy. If these poor people are to be put to death, 
the Pope and all the clergy, who have misinter- 
preted other commands of Scripture, such as that 
regarding the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, 
should also be killed. Strictly, too, these people 
are not rebaptizers. They do not believe in infant 
baptism and hold that theirs is the only true bap- 
tism. This law, therefore, does not properly apply 
to them. 

And even had it been passed against rebaptizers 
as such, and granting that it may apply to the pres- 
ent sectaries, it is the business of the civil power to 
act as a Christian government and not as a tyrant. 
And what is it but tyranny when a government 


Igo RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


corrects, by means of the executioner’s sword, poor 
folk who have misunderstood the Scriptures? One 
need fear no sedition from these people if the civil 
authorities act justly. It is therefore no part of 
the work of a magistrate to punish Anabaptists as 
such, when they mingle with their error no seditious 
tenets.*? 

Such was the remarkable document which came 
from the pen of Brenz in the summer of 1528. I 
have summarized it at considerable length because 
of its importance for later years. At a time when 
the trend of Evangelical thought had turned strongly 
in favor of repression of religious error by the civil 
authorities, Brenz threw his weight into the other 
side of the scale and dared to plead for tolerance. 
These were arme leute —poor folk — who in the 
majority of cases meant no harm. He had no 
patience with diversity in belief, but these people 
should, with thoughtfulness and kindliness, be in- 
structed in the true faith. The state should re- 
strict itself to suppressing sedition and open denial 
of its authority. | 

It was hardly to be expected that such ideas 
would find favor with the other leaders of Evangeli- 
cal reform. Melanchthon (nearly two years later, 
it is true) complained that Brenz was too mild.*° 

89 This qualification is, of course, important. For, despite 
the doubts of Brenz, most responsible heads of states had con- 
vinced themselves that sedition was one of the chief counts 


against these sectaries. 
#0 Melanchthon to Myconius, Feb., 1530, C. R., I, no. 664. 


DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED IgI 


After the action taken at the second Diet of Spires 
(1529) with reference to the sectaries, and influ- 
enced by the subsequent need of using stringent 
means for maintaining the position won by the 
Lutherans, Brenz himself came to other views.” 
This did not prevent his treatise from going forth 
into the world and teaching its quiet message of 
tolerance. It was put into print in the autumn of 
1528, and was twice later printed in full during the 
sixteenth century.” Parts of it were used, too, by 
Sebastian Franck in his Geschichtsbibel* for his 
chapter on heretics, in which he argues against their 
punishment. In 1554 it was used again in a work 
even more notable in the history of tolerance — 


41 Paulus, Protestantismus und Toleranz, chap. 9, esp. DP. 
117. Paulus is answered, though to my thinking not very suc- 
cessfully, by Bossert. Bossert himself states that Brenz had no 
tolerance for a faith that he knew was wrong. If that be 
true, little room is left for tolerance, for no one will deny that 
Brenz considered Lutheranism the only true faith. I am in- 
debted to Professor Burr, however, for a reference showing 
clearly that Brenz never abandoned wholly his earlier position. 
In 1558, when the Protestants were prepared to condemn any 
and all sects the Catholics chose to specify, he still protested. 
“ Der Herr Philippus,” reported Erasmus Sarcerius to the Count 
of Mansfield, “letzlich auch der meinung gewesen, alle secten 
von den Papisten specificiret, umb verhiittunge willen der 
Zertrennung, zuverdammen, wo er von Brentio nicht wer 
abgehalten worden, welchen er auch umb Gottes willen gebet- 
ten er wollen die secten helffen verdammen. Hierauf Brentius 
geanthwortet, er wolle es nicht thun, und da nu solches der Herr 
Philippus gehdret, hatt er die sach also mit betriibtem hertzen 
bleiben lassen.” (Hummel, Epistole historico-ecclesiastice 
saeculo XVI... scriptae, Halle, 1778). 

42 Kohler, Bibliographia Brentiana, pp. 11, 155. 

43 Published in 1531. 


IQ2 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


Sebastian Castellio’s De Haereticis, an sint perse- 
quendi. 

What effect, if any, did the advice of Luther and 
Brenz have upon the deliberations of the Council 
in Nuremberg? On 18 July a decree was passed 
offering amnesty- to all who would recant; those 
who refused were to be banished forthwith.‘ This 
action accords with the suggestion contained in 
Luther’s letter and was probably influenced DYtites 
Brenz’s statement seems to have had less direct in- 
fluence upon the action of the authorities, though 
the policy of moderation in the treatment of those 
who recanted may have been due in part at least 
to his influence.* 

On the strength of the decree some twenty per- 
sons were apprehended during January of the fol- 
lowing year, and later in the same year several 


44 Ludewig p. 78. Soden, p. 319, gives the date as 14 July. 
If Luther’s letter is correctly dated and if the surmise that 
it was in response to a query from the Council holds (vide 
supra, p. 178 and note 35), that date seems impossible. Ludewig 
worked from the archives and is a careful student. I have 
therefore followed him. 

#5 It is interesting to note in this connection Luther’s letter 
to Joseph Levin Metzsch, 26 Aug., 1529, in which he discusses 
the proper method of dealing with dissent, and remarks “So 
haben die zu Niirnberg, und wir zu Wittenberg gethan.” 
(Erlangen, 54, p. 97.) 

*6 It should be noted that, though their attitude changed 
from time to time, the Lutherans were inclined to leniency 
toward those who recanted. An illustration of this is to be 
found in a letter from the Wittenberg theologians to Elector 
John Frederick, dated 24 July, 1 539, regarding one Hans Miiller. 
“Erstlich bitten wir, E k f g wolle im umb gottes willen gnad 


DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 193 


more were arrested. Of these the majority proved 
amenable to instruction and were dismissed with 
light penalties; a few were banished.” 

If the Council, through these various measures 
adopted during the year 1528, was as successful 
in the suppression of radical activity as some writers 
would have us believe, there would be nothing fur- 
ther to chronicle.** Is it not, however, possible to 
find at work some forces, born of the struggle of 
the preceding years, which might have significance 
for those following? Had there been no results 
other than to give to the world the treatise by Brenz, 
the fight for a fuller degree of religious liberty in 
Nuremberg would not have been in vain. For 
Brenz had clearly pointed out that there was a realm 
into which the arm of the state could not properly 
reach—a principle which had become almost 
totally lost to the thinking of other leaders in the 
movement for reform — and, what is equally sig- 
nificant for our present purpose, had argued that 
people could hold different religious beliefs and still 
remain good citizens. Such ideas paved the way for 


erzeigen und im das leben gnediglich lassen, Andere zu_bes- 
serung und bekerung zu reitzen. Denn so zugleich die bekerten 
und unbekerten solten getodt werden, wie im Nidderland ge- 
schicht, wurde inen zu mber verstockung dadurch ursach 
gegeben.” They urge that he should be forced publicly to 
abjure his error, that he should be imprisoned for a short 
time, as an awful warning to others, and that he should attend 
regularly the Evangelical Church. (Enders, 18 pp. 35 et sqq.) 

47 Soden, pp. 320 et seq. 

48 Cf. Roth, Nurnberg, pp. 260 et seq. 


194 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


a more liberal interpretation of the duty of the 
state in the realm of religion. At Nuremberg the 
jurists and theologians debated the question as to 
the proper method to be pursued in dealing with 
the sectaries, from July 1528 to January 1520, and 
the only conclusion which they then reached was 
that the problem was impossible of solution.*® Who 
can measure the possibilities for the development of 
a wider tolerance, when men will admit that no 
conclusion can be reached regarding the suppression 
of a despised sect! It was the sureness that they 
had the only true faith, and the certainty that all 
dissent from that faith must be crushed out, that 
led to the building up of a theory, and of a practice, 
of persecution in Evangelical lands. Even before 
that policy was matured they began to hesitate. A 
new spirit was quietly at work among them. 

49. Jorg, Dp. 704; cf. Ludewig (p. 78), who says that the theo- 
logians urged that the government should punish dissenters 


while the jurists felt that the defensive measure of banishment 
was sufficient. 


CuHaPTer VII 
DISSENT CANNOT BE CRUSHED 


Two years after Brenz penned his opinion on the 
subject of dissent, Spengler wrote both to him and 
to Veit Dietrich, Luther’s friend and secretary, com- 
plaining that there was a party in the city composed 
of men — respectable, not fanatics, friends of his 
— who held that all forms of religious belief, 
whether of Turks, Jews, heathen, ‘“ Anabaptists,” 
or Catholics, should be tolerated. According to 
the theories of this group men should be permitted 
to hold what beliefs they chose and worship as 
they pleased, so long as they did not conspire against 
the government or stir up sedition.’ 

In accordance with the suggestion of Spengler 
to Dietrich the question of the function of govern- 
ment in the suppression of dissent was stressed by 
Luther in a commentary on the 82nd Psalm, upon 
which he was then at work.? During the interval 
between this and his letter of July, 1528, addressed 
to Link, there had taken place the second Diet of 
Spires, March-April, 1529. At that Diet an im- 

1 Letters in Hartmann and Jager, Johann Brenz, pp. 452 
et sqq. and W. A., 31,, pp. 183 et seg. Cf. also Paulus, p. 32 
et seq. 


BONN Werk pnG kot Dail og: 
195 


196 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


perial mandate directed against all sectaries was 
favorably acted upon and given to the world. By 
the terms of this decree all those who refused to 
conform to established religion were to be sum- 
marily executed. At this Diet, too, the Evangelical 
estates protested against the decision of the major- 
ity to enforce the Edict of Worms; but those es- 
tates that thus protested, ostensibly in behalf of 
the individual conscience,’? stated in their Protest 
that the article concerning the sectaries they con- 
sidered in every respect proper. The death pen- 
alty for dissent was now ratified by the estates of 
the Empire, Protestant as well as Catholic. It was 
at this Diet, moreover, that the princes definitely 
assumed the leadership in the Evangelical move-. 
ment. ‘There was nothing left for the theologians 
but to fall into line, whether they would or not. 
No direct evidence is available to show that Luther 
changed his theory in regard to repression as a re- 
sult of the action taken at Spires. Indirect evi- 
dence, however, points in that direction. By 1528 
he had come to advocate banishment for those who 
refused to conform, but he then protested against 
the death penalty. At the time the Diet was sit- 
ting, Hans Sturm, an “ Anabaptist” of Zwickau, 
was, by the advice of Luther and other theologians, 
sentenced to life imprisonment as a blasphemer and 


3 Ney, Geschichte des Reichstags zu Speyer, pp. 284 et seg. 

* Die Appellation und Protestation der evangelischen Stande. 
From “Quellenschriften zur Geschichte des Protestantismus,” 
vol. V, p. 75. 


DISSENT CANNOT BE CRUSHED 1097 


leader in sedition.” This marks some advance 
toward severity in the theory of repression. But a 
still greater change was to take place. 

The Protest at Spires placed the protesting es- 
tates in grave peril. It behooved them to see that, 
in so far as possible, everything that might in any 
way create disturbance and bring down upon them 
the condemnation of the Catholic states should be 
sternly repressed. To them the fate of a minority 
of discontented folk who could not be satisfied with 
religion as authorized by the various states, was of 
small consequence as compared with the vastly more 
important matter of maintaining their own position 
and independence, as well as the authorized Evan- 
gelical faith. Had there been any hesitation in pro- 
ceeding to drastic measures, the desire now to mol- 
lify the Emperor and the Catholic majority would 
have acted as a powerful aid in stilling troubled 
consciences. Every consideration of policy would 
demand that the mandate against the sectaries be 
enforced. Thus toward the end of 1529 we find 
Luther writing to the Elector of Saxony urging 
against any union with the Zwinglians as “ un- 
christian,” and maintaining that no one had been 
more assiduous than his supporters in the repres- 
sion of sectarian propaganda.’ By the beginning 
of the following year he was ready to advise the 
death penalty for sectaries on the ground that they 


5 Wappler, Inquisition, p. 54. 
6 Erlangen, 54, pp. 80, 82. 


198 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


were guilty both of blasphemy and of sedition.’ 
A few weeks later Veit Dietrich, writing to Speng- 
ler in reply to the letter mentioned above, stated 
that Luther would not have the civil magistrate 
tolerate sectaries, whether or not they held seditious 
tenets. For erroneous teaching is blasphemy, and 
blasphemy must not be tolerated.® 

In his commentary on the 82nd Psalm Luther 
defined clearly what he meant. by blasphemy. 
Those who teach against an article of faith clearly 
grounded in Scripture, the creeds, or the early 
Fathers, and generally believed, are blasphemous. 
Moses commanded that blasphemers, all false 
teachers, be stoned. In the same way should we 
refuse to indulge in long disputations, but “ un- 
heard and unanswered condemn such open blas- 
phemy.”® The appeal to the Mosaic Law leaves 
little doubt as to the means which Luther would 
employ when necessity arose. A few pages further 
on he becomes more explicit where he urges that 
unauthorized preachers, who insist on continuing 
their propaganda, be turned over to “ Master. 
Hans." 3° 

But Luther was attempting to turn back the 


7 Luther to Menius and Myconius (Enders, 7, p. 236). The 
letter is here dated in March but Wappler, Stellung Kursachsens 
und Hessens, p. 15, note 1, thinks it was probably written in 
February. 

8 Letter in Haussdorff, Lebensbeschreibung Lazari Spenglers, 
p. 192. 

9 W. A., 31,, pp. 208 et seq. 

10 [bid., p. 212. The stand here taken was substantiated the 


DISSENT CANNOT BE CRUSHED _ 199 


hands of time. Already a new force was being born 
into the world. The revolt from Rome had in- 
creased consciousness of selfhood. More and more 
men were coming to feel that external force was not 
the proper means to employ for the inculcation of 
Christian doctrine. The executioner’s block was 
proving a poor substitute for the teacher’s desk. 
This spirit grew only gradually, but none the less 
steadily. It was at work among the group at 
Nuremberg of whom Spengler complained. It had 
other champions. Wolfgang Capito, amazed at the 
steadfastness with which the condemned sectaries 
met their death, questioned whether after all it was 
not the Holy Spirit within them which gave them 
such strength.** John Odenbach, Evangelical 
preacher at Moscheln in the Rhenish Palatinate, 
pleaded for the sectaries so effectively that the 
judges at Alzey refused to hear cases against them 
on the ground that this was a spiritual matter over 
which they had no jurisdiction.” Philip of Hesse 
following year by his placet mihi Luthero affixed to the 
Gutachten of Melanchthon, in which the death penalty is 
definitely advocated. C. R. IV, c. 737 et sqq. The date here 
given is 1541, but Wappler (Stellung Kursachsens und Hessens, 


p. 25) has shown that it must have been written in October, 
igh 

11 In his Apologia pro Anabaptistis, quoted from Enders, 
6, p. 264, note 3. Luther was sure they were strengthened 
by Satan (Enders, 6, p. 262) and the Nurembergers expressed 
surprise that women should so readily suffer death for their faith. 
(David von Watt to Vadian, 28 Jan., 1528. In “ Vadianische 
Briefsammlung,” Mitteilungen zur vaterliandischen Geschichte, 8, 
p. 86.) 

12 Hege, Die Tadufer in der Kurpfalz, pp. 52 et sqq. The 


200 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


opposed the execution of the imperial mandate pro- 
mulgated at Spires against them, insisting that 
lighter penalties were sufficient."* Where men saw 
two, or even three systems of faith each claiming 
to be the only true religion and each sparing no 
effort to gain the mastery, it is little wonder that 
they began to ask if it was worth while to put a 
man to death because he adhered to a belief differ- 
ing on some points from that of the authorities of 
the state in which he happened to live. It is not 
meant to imply that persecution ceased about this 
time. On the contrary it became even more bitter, 
but these instances serve to show how difficult, nay, 
how impossible, it was to carry through a consistent 
policy of repression even after it was evolved. 

At almost precisely the same time that Luther 
was writing his commentary on the 82nd Psalm, ad- 
vocating stringent repression, Sebastian Franck, a 
pioneer in an entirely different school of thought, 
was penning his Geschichisbibel, in which he em- 
bodied a chronicle of the heretics. The world, he 
says, calls one whom it does not understand a 
heretic.** And prominent in his roll of honor is 
the name of the Christ himself. The spirit that 
title of Odenbach’s booklet is Ain Sendbrieff und Ratschlag an 
verordnete Richter / uber die armen gefangnen zu Altzey so 
man nennet Widerteuffer, 1528. It is a notable little plea for 
justice for these persecuted folk. 

13 Ordnung of Philip of Hesse, Oct., 1531 (pub. in Wappler, 
Stellung Kursachsens und Hessens, pp. 154 et seq.). 


14 Chronica, Zeytbuch und Geschychtsbibel, edition of 1531, 
P. 336. 


DISSENT CANNOT BE CRUSHED 201 


breathed through this work of Franck’s was the 
spirit of a later age. It was the insistence upon the 
rights of the individual conscience in opposition to 
the dictates of dogmatic authority. The fight for 
long was an unequal one, but gradually some ground 
has been won. Following generations have made 
some attempt to understand the heretic. The lesson 
is a difficult one and is far from being learned, 
but for such measure of success as has been at- 
tained, for such measure of freedom from the dic- 
dates of authority as the individual spirit has 
achieved, credit in part is due to the “ultras ” of 
the period of the Reformation — men who braved 
bitter persecution, accepting death rather than deny 
their consciences. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 


Tus study traces the growth of a theory and the 
development of a policy. For the former one may go 
to the writings of the various leaders of the Evangelical 
movement; for the latter one must turn in large part 
to scattered official papers. 

The literary materials are abundant and easily avail- 
able. Complete or partial editions of the works of the 
leaders of the Protestant revolt are within easy reach 
of all. The most important single source is Luther. 
His writings exist in numerous collections, ranging from 
the little single-volume edition put out by Froben in 
1518 to the great Weimar edition at present in the 
course of publication. The works of others of the re- 
formers, while not so carefully edited, are still adequate. 
Much critical work has been done in this field and the 
texts, except for minor points, are trustworthy. Care 
must, however, be exercised in their use. They con- 
sist, for the most part, of sermons, exegetical works, 
pamphlets, and letters. It is necessary always to ex- 
amine the circumstances under which a sermon was de- 
livered, a pamphlet or a letter written. Failure to do 
this may lead to serious error in interpretation. A 
letter, for example, dashed off by Luther to a friend 
or in answer to the attack of an enemy may not always 
be granted the same authority as a reasoned statement 
in reply to a query from his prince. Literary sources 
are always difficult to handle; they become increasingly 


202 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 203 


so at a time of hot passion, such as the early years of 
the Lutheran revolt. 

The documentary material is not so readily available. 
Much there is in various collections, but much must be 
culled from scattered sources; some lies still buried in 
archives. Very important evidence for this study has 
been gathered in recent years and has been published 
either as appendices to monographs or in separately 
bound volumes. This study could not have been written 
had it not been for such materials published by Kolde, 
Nicoladoni, Wappler, and others in connection with 
their own researches. These consist of records of court 
proceedings, including the depositions of sectaries, 
together with decrees of emperor, princes, city councils, 
or diets directed against them. 

To arrive at any just estimate of the life, character, 
and work of the leaders of the radical movement is a 
difficult matter. Almost without exception the material 
which has come down to us is hostile. Some fragments 
favorable to them may be gathered from scattered 
sources — the chance admission of an enemy, their de- 
positions at court hearings, a few pamphlets in their de- 
fense. These, taken in connection with the mass of hos- 
tile writings, make it possible to approximate a true 
picture. Notable among this class of materials is the 
Bedenken of Johann Brenz. This has been discussed 
in the text, but an interesting and unique manuscript 
copy should be more fully described here. 

This copy is in the Cornell University Library. It 
is in the handwriting, not of Brenz, but of a professional 
scribe. A pleasing and perhaps not altogether impos- 
sible guess is that it was copied, at the time it was re- 


204 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


ceived in Nuremberg, by one of the secretaries for the 
permanent records of that city. The date and occasion 
of its writing has been the subject of much speculation. 
Until supplied by this manuscript the earliest date 
known for it was that of its first printing, October, 1528. 
(See Kohler, Bibliographia Brentiana.) The manu- 
script is dated ‘‘ 1528, in siebenden tag des Heumonats ” 
(7 July, 1528). The various conjectures as to its occa- 
sion seem now to have been set at rest. It is clearly in 
answer to a question of the Nurembergers, written prob- 
ably by Spengler at the same time that Link sent a like 
query to Luther regarding the method of procedure to be 
adopted in reference to the sectaries. Collation of the 
manuscript with the printed text, as it appears in Biden- 
bach’s Consilia Theologica, shows no important varia- 
tions. The various reprints are listed by Ko6hler 
in his Bibliographia Brentiana. 

The classification of the material in the bibliography 
is more or less arbitrary, but is, I trust, clear. A word 
should be said in regard to the pamphlets. It seemed 
like useless duplication to list separately Luther’s pam- 
phlets which were of value for this study. They may 
be found in his collected works and are discussed in the 
text. 

The chronicles of the period were of little use for this 
study. Those that were found to have any value at 
all will be found listed in a separate category. 

It is impossible to attempt to do any work on the 
Reformation without becoming well-nigh overwhelmed 
with literature on the subject. The list of works com- 
piled below makes no claim to comprehensiveness. Only 
those which have proved in some way valuable or which 
seemed, because of the subject matter, to belong in such 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 205 


a bibliography have been noted. Some there are which 
would have found no place here had it not been for an 
appendix containing an important letter or document. 

The special study of the Lutheran revolt in its rela- 
tion to the growth of religious liberty was begun by 
Kohler in his admirable little monograph, Reformation 
und ‘Ketzerprozess, published in 1901. Other scholars 
have recognized the importance of this field and have 
followed his lead, none more successfully than Volker 
in his Toleranz und Intoleranz im Zeitalter der Reforma- 
tion. The field has not been left entirely for German 
scholarship, however; careful surveys have been made 
by Professors Burr and Faulkner, and more recently an 
English scholar, R. H. Murray, has contributed a volume 
to the discussion. 

Until comparatively recently it has been the fashion 
in writing of the sectaries to follow the judgment of 
their contemporary opponents. Keller raised his voice 
in strong protest late in the last century. It was special 
pleading, however. Only within the last three decades, 
and notably by Wappler, has really critical work been 
done on them. It now becomes possible to get at some- 
thing approaching their true significance for their own 
and for later times. 

No bibliography on this subject would be complete 
without reference to the valuable material which may 
be found in the numerous periodicals, devoted wholly 
or in part to the period. Not only is critical work of 
a high order to be found in their pages, but there are 
frequently to be found, also, stray bits of source mate- 
rial which have come to light and which are not avail- 
able elsewhere. Such material, when it was of value for 
this study, has been listed in the bibliography. 


206 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 


A list of the abbreviations used in text and _ bibli- 
ography —except those clearly self-explanatory — is 
here appended. 


WWE BRIM GS oh eh Allgemeine deutsche Biographie. Leip- 
zig, 1875. 
HORE Sea CUS ea te Archiv fir  Reformationsgeschichte. 


Ed. Friedensburg, Leipzig, 1905-. 

B.B.K.G.....Beitrige zur bayerischen Kirchenge- 
schichte. Ed. Th. Kolde and H. ~ 
Jordan. Erlangen, 1895-. 

Cg RNa aur Corpus Reformatorum. 

TeNGers ae Dr. Martin Luthers Briefwechsel. Ed. 
by. Enders, carried forward by 
Kawerau, Flemming and. Albrecht. 
Frankfurt a.M., Stuttgart, Leipzig, 
1884-1923. 

Erlangen ...... Luthers vermischte deutsche Schriften. 
Vols. 53 to 56 of the Erlangen edition 
of Luther’s works. 

LSA OAD Realencyclopddie fir protestantische 
Theologie und Kirche. Ed. Herzog- 
Hauck. 3d ed. Leipzig, 1896-1913. 

Sch. V. R. G. ..Schriften des Vereins fiir Reformations- 
geschichte. Halle, 1883-. 


Wialchiue tna ee Dr. Martin Luthers ... . sdmtliche 
Schriften. Ed. by Walch. Halle, 
1740-1755. 

Wi CAE gen Lenin Dr. Martin Luthers Werke. ‘Kritische 


Gesammtausgabe. Weimar, 1883-. 
PA Th EAT BL Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


I Sources 


A. Miscellaneous Collections 


BIDENBACH, Ferx, Consilia Theologica. Frankfurt, 
1612. 

Contains valuable pamphlets of the Reformation 
period. Most important the “ Bedenken ” of Brenz 
(1528). 

Ecut, Emin, Actensammlung zur Geschichte der Zurcher 

Reformation in den Jahren 1519-1533. Zurich, 1879. 
A summary of documents with excerpts from the 
more important. Useful especially for some corre- 
spondence, 

Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation. 
4 vols., ed. by Otto Clemen. Leipzig and New York, 
1907-1910. 

The most important pamphlets of this collection 
have been mentioned separately below. 

FORSTEMANN, CARL Epuarp, Neues Urkundenbuch zur 
Geschichte der evangelischen Kirchen-Reformatton. 
Hamburg, 1842. 

But one volume of what was intended to be a com- 
prehensive work was ever published. Important 
for documents relating to Thomas Munzer. 

Korner, Tu., Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der 
“drei gottlosen Maler” von Niirnberg. In Kirchen- 
geschichtliche Studien dedicated to H. F. Reuter. 
Leipzig, 1890. 


207 


208 BIBLIOGRAPHY 


A very important body of sources gleaned from the 
archives at Nuremberg and comprising all the 
available archival material concerning the trial of 
Denck and the painters, together with other scat- 
tered testimony concerning the radicals in Nurem- 
berg, 1524-1525. Of highest value for this study. 

LUNIG dae. Das teutsche Reichs-Archiv. 24 vols. 
Leipzig, 1710-1722. 

A large and important collection made up of offi- 
cial papers — political and religious — relating to 
the empire and the various German states. Volume 
II contains the recesses of the diets held during the 
period of the Lutheran revolt. 

Quellenschriften zur Geschichte des Protestantismus. 
Ed. Kunze and Stange. Leipzig, 1904— 

Comprises valuable material illustrative of Protes- 
tant thought, re-edited with notes and introductions. 
Confined to no special period. Twelve volumes 
have thus far appeared. Vol. V contains the “ Pro- 
test” of the Evangelical states at Spires (15209). 

REINHARD, J. P., Beytrige zu der Historie Franken- 
landes und der angranzenden Gegenden. Bayreuth, 
1760. : 

A miscellaneous collection of source material for the 
history of central Germany. 

RicHTER, AEMILIus Lupwic, Die evangelischen Kirchen- 
ordnungen des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts. Urkunden 
und Regesten zur Geschichte des Rechts und der Ver- 
fassung der evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland. 
Vol. I, Weimar, 1846. 

RouricH, T. W., “ Zur Geschichte der strassburgischen 
Wiedertaufer in den Jahren 1527 bis 1543. Aus den 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 209 


Vergichtbiichern und andern archivalischen Quellen.” 
Zettschr. f. hist. Theologie, Vol. XXX, 1860. 
Most useful are the decrees of the Council regard- 
ing the “Anabaptists,” 1526-1528. 

SEHLING, E., Die evangelischen ‘Kirchenordnungen des 

XVI Jahrhunderts. Vols. 1-5. Leipzig, 1902-1913. 
Planned to be complete in 8 volumes. Supersedes 
the older and much smaller collection of Richter. 

STRICKLER, DR. Jou., Actensammlung zur schweizer- 
ischen Reformationsgeschichte (1521-32). 5 vols., 
Zurich, 1878-84. 

Supplements the collection of Egli, covering a wider 
field. Vol. I covers the period from 1521 to 1528, 
the other four from 1528 to 1532. 

STROBEL, GEORG THEODOR, Miscellaneen literarischen 
Inhalis. Nurnberg, 1778. 

A miscellaneous body of material thrown together 
in haphazard fashion. Contains some material of 
value for the story of the Evangelical revolt in 
Nuremberg. 

Urkunden zur Geschichte des schwabischen Bundes. 
Ed. by K. Klupfel. Stuttgart, 1853. 

Published as volumes 14 and 31 in the Bibliothek 
des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart. Vol. 31 
covers the years 1507-1533. A register with ex- 
cerpts from important documents. Valuable for 
the action taken by the League with reference to 
the “ Anabaptists.” 

VAN Bracut, T. J., 4 Martyrology of the Churches of 
Christ commonly called Baptists during the Era of 
the Reformation. Tr. and ed. for the Hanserd-Knollys 
Society by E. B. Underhill. London, 1850. 


210 BIBLIOGRAPHY 


B. Collected Works and Correspondence of 
Individual Authors 


BuLAURER, Briefwechsel der Briider Ambrosius und 
Thomas Blaurer. Ed. by Traugott Schiess. Bd. I 
(1509-1538). Freiburg, 1908. 

An interesting body of correspondence between the 
Blaurer brothers and the Evangelical reformers of 
south Germany. Numerous references to the “ Ana- 
baptists.”’ 

Lets, “ Kilian Leibs Briefwechsel und Diarien.” Ed. 
by Joseph Schlecht. Reformationsgeschichtliche 
Studien und Texte, vol. 7. Miinster, 1909. 

A bitter arraignment of the whole Evangelical re- 
volt and especially of the sects. Valuable as illus- 
trating the Catholic point of view. 

LuTHeErR, Dr. Martin Luthers sowol in Deutscher als 
Lateinischer Sprache verfertigte und aus der letztern 
in die erstere tibersetzte simtliche Schriften. Ed. by 
Johann Georg Walch. Halle, 1740-55. 

An old but still useful collection of Luther’s works 

in 24 volumes. Contains, beside his works, other 

documents illustrative of the Protestant revolt. 

Must be used with care because of errors. Largely 

superseded by the later editions, especially the great 

Weimar edition. 

Dr. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamt- 

ausgabe. Weimar, 1883. 

The definitive edition of Luther’s works. 

Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und 

Bedenken. Ed. by De Wette and Seidemann. Berlin, 

1825-56. 








BIBLIOGRAPHY 211 


LUTHER (continued), Dr. Martin Luthers Briefwechsel. 
Ed. with notes by Enders, Kawerau, Flemming, and 
Albrecht. Frankfurt a.M., Calw and Stuttgart, 1884- 
1923. 

The best edition of Luther’s letters. Well edited, 

with copious critical and explanatory notes. It 

must be supplemented, however, by the Erlangen 
edition, as the letters in German there published are 
not included. 

Dr. Martin Luthers vermischte deutsche Schriften. 

Ed. by J. K. Irmischer. Vols. 53 to 56 of the Erlan- 

gen edition of Luther’s works. Frankfurt a.M. and 

Erlangen, 1853. 

Useful as a supplement to the Latin letters in 

Enders. Care in their use is necessary, however, 

as they are often misdated. 

The Three Primary Works of Dr. Martin Luther. 

Ed. and tr. by Wace and Buchheim. London, 1883. 

Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary 
Letters. Vol. I (including letters from 1507-1521) 
tr. and ed. by Preserved Smith. Vol. II (letters from 
1521-1530) by Smith and Jacobs. Philadelphia, 1913 
and 1918. 

MELANCHTHON, Purtuipp, Opera. Ed. by Bretschneider 
and Bindseil, 1834-60. 

Letters as well as sermons, pamphlets, and exegeti- 
cal works. His letters furnish the chief matter of 
interest for this study. Some inaccuracies occur, 
especially in the matter of dating. 

PIRKHEIMER, Opera. Ed. by Goldast. Frankfurt, 1610. 

One folio volume of the works of Pirkheimer. Val- 
uable for the letters which it contains. 











212 BIBLIOGRAPHY 


PLANITZ, HANS VON DER, Berichte aus dem Reichsregi- 
ment in Nurnberg, 1521-1523. Leipzig, 1899. 
Interesting body of letters from the representative 
of the Elector of Saxony at the Diet. 
RuEcIuS, URBANuS, D. Urbani Regii, . . . Bicher und 
Schriften. Frankfurt am Mayn, 1577. 
SCHEURL, Christoph.Scheurl’s Briefbuch. Ed. by Soden 
and Knaake. Potsdam, 1872. 
Vol. II comprises letters of the period from 1517 
to 1540. Contains some few letters of value for 
the study of the sectaries. Scheurl was for long 
Secretary to the Council of Nuremberg, but his 
letters are not so important as one might expect. 
VADIAN (JOACHIM voN Watt), Briefsammlung. Ed. 
by Arbenz (Emil) in Mitt. zur vaterlandischen Ge- 
schichte herausgegeben vom historischen Verein in St. 
Gallen, 3 Folge. Vols. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10a. 1890—- 
1913. 
An important body of correspondence for the his- 
tory of the Swiss Reformation; a few letters of 
direct value for this study. 
ZWINGLI, Opera Omnia. Ed. by Schuler and Schulthess. 
8 vols. Ziirich, 1830-1842. 
The first two volumes comprise his German works; 
vols. 7 and 8 his letters. Useful chiefly for the 
letters. 
Samtliche Werke. Ed. by Egli, Finsler, Kohler. 
Berlin, 1904-. 
A much needed edition of Zwingli’s works now in 
course of publication. 
Selected Works of Huldreich Zwingli. Ed. by S. M. 
Jackson. Philadelphia, 1901. 








BIBLIOGRAPHY 213 


A convenient translation of a few of Zwingli’s works. 
Contains his Refutation of the Tricks of the Cata- 
baptists (1527). 


C. Books and Pamphlets 


“ Aigentliche beschreibung der handlungen, so sich mit 
den widerteufern zu Augspurg zugetragen und ver- 
laufen hat.” Ed. by Chr. Meyer under the caption 
“‘Wiedertaufer in Schwaben ” in Z. K. G., 17, pp. 248 
et sqq. 

Of considerable value for the life of Hut and con- 
tains some direct references to the ‘‘ Anabaptists ” 
in Nuremberg. 

BRENZ, JOHANN, ‘‘ Ob ein weltliche Obrigkeit in gott- 
lichen und billichen Rechten die Wiedertaufer durch 
Feuer oder Schwert vom Leben zum Tod richten las- 
sen moge,” in Bidenbach, Consilia Theologica. 1612. 

A manuscript copy of the same opinion is in Cor- 
nell University Library. See p. 203 for description. 

“Von Milderung der Fiirsten gegen die aufrihr- 
ischen Bauern,” in Flugschriften aus den ersten 
Jahren der Reformation. Vol. III. Leipzig, 1909. 

Interesting in this connection as showing Brenz’s 
tolerant point of view. 

“ Bruderlich Vereinigung etzlicher Kinder Gottes, sieben 
Artikel betreffend. Item ein Sendbrief Michael Sat- 
tlers an eine Gemeine Gottes samt seinem Martyrium 
(1527). Ed. by Walter Kohler in Flugschriften aus 
den ersten Jahren der Reformation. Vol. II, Pt. 3, 
Leipzig, 1908. 

These are the ‘Seven Articles of Schlatten am 
Rand” drawn up by a group of ‘“ Anabaptists ” 





214 BIBLIOGRAPHY 


in 1527. Important for a knowledge of the tenets 
of one group, at least, of the sectaries. Written 
apparently by Michael Sattler. 

BULLINGER, HEINRICH, Der Widertoufferen ursprung, 
fiirgang, secten, wadsen, etc. Zurich, 1561. 

A history of the “ Anabaptists” by one of the 
leaders of the “Swiss revolt. Like all the contem- 
porary histories of the sectaries it must be used 
with caution, though Bullinger tries to be fair. 
More important for the period subsequent to that 
of this study. 

Denck, Hans, Von der wahren Liebe. Elkhart, Indi- 
ana, 1888. 

One of the few extant pamphlets from the pen of 
Denck. 

Ein gehapter Raischlag Lucipers des firsten der fin- 
sterniiss mit seinen amptleuten und miterben der 
ewigen verdamniss. 1529. 

A rare “ Anabaptist ” satire. Purports to be the 
report to Lucifer of the minions whom he has sent 
to stir up dissension among his foes at Spires. De- 
picts his joy upon learning that Luther and his 
followers are now the foes of the ‘‘ Anabaptists.” 
(A copy in Cornell University Library.) 

Ein Gottlich unnd grundtlich offenbarung von den 
warhafftigen widerteuffern: mit Géttlicher warhait 
angezaigt. MDXXVII. 

Another rare pamphlet, attributed by Uhlhorn 
(Urbanus Rhegius, p. 123) to Langenmantel. De- 
fends the sectaries against the charge of ‘“ Ana- 
baptism.” Apologetic but not polemic, it is a fair 
statement of the position of the sectaries, appar- 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 215 


ently with the hope of stemming the tide of perse- 

cution. (The copy consulted by me is in the British 
Museum. ) 

Ein kurtze untterricht / den Pfarherrn und Predigern 

. . / wes sie das volck wider etliche verfirische 

lere / der widertauffer . . . vermanen / und unter- 

richten sollen. Suntag nach dem neuen Jarsstag (3 
Fan yyor 528. 

ENpERS, Lupwic, “Aus dem Kampf der Schwirmer 
gegen Luther: drei Flugschriften (1524, 1525).” In 
Flugschriften aus der Reformationszeit, X. Halle, 
1893. 

Reprints, with careful introductions, three pam- 
phlets of the years 1524-25. 

FRANCK, SEBASTIAN, Chronica, Zeytbuch und Ge- 
schychtsbibel, Strassburg, 1531. 

A substantial volume of highest value for the study 
of the sects. Franck was an individualist. He 
stood aloof from all parties, but he was sympathetic 
with the sectaries and like them was hounded by 
the authorities. He was their one really favorable 
contemporary critic. 

Grundtliche untterrichtung / eins erbern Rats der Statt 
Nurmberg / Welcher gestalt / jre Pfarrher un / 
Prediger in den Stetten un auff dem Land / das volck / 
wider etliche verfiirische lere der Widertauffer / in 
jren predigen auss heyliger Gotlicher schrifft / zum 
getreulichsté ermanen unnd_ unterrichten — sollen. 
Gedriickt zu Niirmberg durch Jobst Gutknecht. 
(Jan., 1528.) 

Handlung eynes Ersamenn weysen Rats zu Niirnberg 
mit tren Predicantten newlich geschehen. MDXXV. 


216 BIBLIOGRAPHY 


A report of the final break of Nuremberg with the 
Catholic Church. 

ICKELSCHAMER, VALENTINUS, “ Clag etlicher briider: an 
alle Christen von der grossen ungerechtickeyt und 
Tirannei, so Endressen Bodensteyn von Carolstat 
yetzo von Luther zu Wittenbergk geschicht.” 1525. 
Pub. by Enders in Aus dem Kampf der Schwarmer 
gegen Luther. 

A bitter arraignment of the Lutheran movement, by 
a follower of Karlstadt. 

MeEntus, Justus, “ Der Widerteuffer lere und geheimnis 
aus heiliger Schrifft widerlegt durch Justus Menius.” 
MDXXxX. Published in Vol. II of the Wittenberg 
edition of Luther’s works (1551). 

Written at the suggestion of Luther to expose the 
“ Anabaptist ”? movement and to furnish arguments 
to combat it. The volume of Luther’s collected | 
works in which it is found contains other pamphlets 
directed against the ‘“ Anabaptists.” 

Munzer, Tuos., “ Hoch verursachte Schutzrede und 
antwwort wider das Gaistlosse Sanfft lebende fleysch 
zu Wittenberg, welches mit verkarter weysse, durch 
den Diepstal der heiligen schrift die erbermdliche 
Christenheit, also gatz jamerlichen besudelt hat.” 
1524. Pub. by Enders in Aus dem Kampf der 
Schwarmer gegen Luther. 

A violent attack upon Luther. 

ODENBACH, JOHANN, Ain Sendbrieff und Ratschlag an 
verordnete Richter uber die armen gefangnen zu 
Altzey so man nennet Widerteuffer. 1528. 

A notable plea for forbearance addressed by a 
Lutheran pastor at Moscheln in the Rhenish Palati- 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 217 


nate to the judges of Alzey. One of the very few 
contemporary pamphlets in defense of the sectaries. 

PIRKHEIMER, CHaritas, Der hochberiihmten Charitas 
Pirkheimer, Aebtissin von S. Clara zu Nurnberg, 
Denkwiirdigkeiten aus dem Reformationszeitalter. Ed. 
by C. Hofler. Bamberg, 1852. 

Interesting as representing the attitude of an ortho- 
dox Catholic toward the Evangelical revolt in 
Nuremberg. A good corrective of the extreme 
Protestant viewpoint. 

RueEcius, UrsANus, Wider den neuen Taufforden / 
Notwendige Warnung an alle Christgleubigen Durch 
die diener des Evangelu zu Augsburg. 1528. 

A good statement of the Lutheran position. 


D. Chronicles 


Die Geschichtsbiicher der Wiedertaufer in Oesterretch- 
Ungarn. Ed. by Dr. Joseph Beck. In Fontes Rerum 
Austriacarum, vol. XLIII, Vienna, 1883. 

The first few pages cover the period of this study. 

© Die Wiedertaufer in Mahren.”” Ed. by Gregor Wolny 

in Archiv fir Kunde osterreichischer Geschichts-Quel- 
len, vol. V, 1850. 

KeEssueR, Johannes Kesslers Sabbata. Chronik der 
Jahre 1523-1539. Ed. by Dr. Ernst Goetzinger in 
Mitt. zur vaterlindischen Geschichte herausgegeben 
vom hist. Verein in St. Gallen, vols. 5-10. St. Gallen, 
1866-8. 

Ottius, Jou., Annales Anabaptistici. Basel, 1772. 

Scarcely gets under way before 1530, but of some 
value. 


218 BIBLIOGRAPHY 


SLEIDAN, A famous chronicle of oure time, called 
Sleidanes Commentaries, Eng. trans. by John Daws. 
1560. 


Il Later Works 


Acton, J. E. F. D., The History of Freedom and Other 
Essays. London,*1907. 

Essays II and V, “ history of freedom in Christian- 

ity”? and “ Protestant theory of persecution,” are 

interesting discussions of the subject from the pen 
of a Catholic scholar. 

Lectures on Modern History. London, 1906. 

ALBRECHT, Otto, “ Beitrage zum Verstandnis des Brief- 
wechsels Luthers im Jahre 1524,” in Beitrége zur 
Reformationsgeschichte — Festschrift fiir Kostlin. 
Gotha, 18096. 

ARNOLD, GOTTFRIED, Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzer- 
Historie, vom Anfang des Neuen Testaments bis auf 
das Jahr Christi 1688. 3 vols. Vol. I. Schaffhausen, 
1740. 

Valuable in the present connection for the writings 
of Miunzer and Denck, which are to be found in 
Vol. I, Bk. II. Most important is Denck’s Widerruf. 

BARGE, HERMANN, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt. 
2 vols. Leipzig, 1905. 

The standard life of Karlstadt. 

BEARD, CHARLES, The Reformation of the 16th Century 
in its Relation to Modern Thought and Knowledge. 
London, 1883. 

BoNIN, BURKHARD VON, Die praktische Bedeutung des 
tus reformandi, Stuttgart, 1902. 

Bossert, Gustav, “ Johann Brenz, ‘der Reformator 





BIBLIOGRAPHY 219 


Wiirttembergs ’ und seine Toleranzideen,” in Bldtter 
fiir wiirttembergische Kirchengeschichte. Stuttgart, 
IQII-I2. 

BRANDENBURG, ErIcH, Martin Luthers Anschauung vom 
Staate und der Gesellschaft. In Schr. V. R. G. 
Halle, 1g9or. 

BRIEGER, THEODORE, Der Speierer Reichstag von 1526 
und die religidse Frage der Zeit. Leipzig, 1909. 

Insists, in opposition to Friedensburg, that the 
Recess gave to the princes the right to carry out 
religious innovations. 

BucuoutTz, F. B. von, Geschichte der Regierung Ferdt- 
nands des Ersten. 9g vols. Vien, 1831-38. 

BurkuHarpt, C. A. H., Geschichte der sdchsischen Kir- 
chen- und Schulvisitationen von 1524 bis 1545. 
Leipzig, 1879. 

Burr, G. L., ‘ Anent the Middle Ages.” American His- 
torical Review, vol. XVIII, July, 1913. 

A brilliant survey of the Middle Ages. Its value 
for this study lies chiefly in the acute summary of 
Luther’s views on tolerance. 

BurraGE, Henry S., A History of the Anabaptists in 
Switzerland. Philadelphia, 1882. 

Sympathetically inclined toward the sectaries. 

Cornetius, C. A., Geschichte des miinsterischen 
Aufruhrs. Leipzig, 1855. 

Written by a Catholic scholar who saw no good in 
the “‘ Anabaptists,” and who was fully convinced 
that they were the offspring of Luther. Of little 
present value. 

Drews, P., Wilibald Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reforma- 
tion. Leipzig, 1887. 


220 BIBLIOGRAPHY 


ErpkaM, HEINRICH WILHELM, Geschichte der protes- 
tantischen Sekten im Zeitalter der Reformation. 
Hamburg u. Gotha, 1848. 

Has been superseded by later works. 

FauLKNER, J. A., “Luther and Toleration.” In Papers 
of the American Society of Church History. 2nd 
Series. Vol. IV. -New York and London, ro1q. 

A careful discussion of Luther’s thought in the field 
of tolerance. Leans heavily upon Kohler. 

FRIEDENSBURG, WALTER, Der Reichstag zu Speier, 1526. 
Berlin, 1887. 

——‘ Der Speierer Reichstagsabschied von 1526 und 
die religidse Frage.” A. R. G., vol. 7 (1909). 

FUssuin (or Fiissli), JoHANN Conran, Beytrége zur 
Erliuterung der Kirchen-Reformations Geschichten 
des Schweitzerlandes. § vols. Ziirich, 1741-1753. 

Contains much original material embedded in its 
pages. 

GERBERT, CAMILL, Geschichte der Strassburger Sekten- 
bewegung zur Zeit der Reformation, 1524-15 34. 
Strassburg, 1880. 

Grisar, HARTMANN, Luther. 3 vols. Freiburg 1.B., 
IQII. 

One of the latest and most scholarly of the lives 
of Luther. From the pen of a Catholic scholar, it 
is hostile toward Luther and sees in his movement 
no forward step in the growth of religious liberty. 

Hacen, Karu, Deutschlands literarische und religiose 
Verhaltnisse im Reformationszeitalter — mit beson- 
derer Rucksicht auf Wilibald Pirkheimer. 3 vols. 2nd 
ed. Frankfurt a.M., 1868. 

An acute study of the cultural life of Germany in 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 221 


the 16th century. Furnishes an excellent back- 
ground. 

HaceEn, R., “ Wilibald Pirkheimer in seinem Verhaltnis 
zum Humanismus und zur Reformation.” In Mitt. 
des Vereins fur Geschichte der Stadt Nurnberg, vol. 
4. 1882. 

Harnacxk, ApotpH, History of Dogma. Tr. from 3rd 
Ger. ed. by Neil Buchanan. 7 vols. Boston, 1895- 
1900. 

HARTMANN, JULIUS, and JAGER, Karu, Johann Brenz. 
Hamburg, 1840. 

A new biography is much needed. 

Haupt, HERMANN, Die religidsen Sekten in Franken 
vor der Reformation. Wirzburg, 1882. 

HaussporFF, Gottiies, Lebens-Beschreibung Lazart 
Spenglers. Nurnberg, 1741. 

Of value especially because of letters which are 
included in the footnotes. 

HEBERLE, URBAN, “ Johann Denck und sein Biichlein 
vom Gesetz.” In Theologische Studien und Krittken, 
1851. 

—‘ W. Capito’s Verhaltnisse zum Anabaptismus.” In 
Zeitschrift d. hist. Theol., 1857. 

HEcE, CuristT1an, Die Tadufer in der Kurpfalz. Frank- 
furt a.M., 1908. 

Hecuer, A., Geist und Schrift bei Sebastian Franck. 
Freiburg i.B., 1892. 

A careful analysis of an exceedingly interesting 
character. 

Sebastian Francks lateinische Paraphrase der deut- 

schen Theologie und seine hollandisch erhalienen 

Trakiate. Tubingen, 1gor. 





222 BIBLIOGRAPHY 


HERMELINK, H., Die religidsen Reformbestrebungen des 
deutschen Humanismus. Tiibingen, 1907. 

Der Toleranzgedanke im Reformationszeitalter. In 

Schr. des Vereins f. Ref. Gesch., 1908. 

Attempts to show that Lutheranism was a long step 
in the direction of religious freedom. 

‘Zu Luthers Gedanken iiber Idealgemeinden und 
weltliche Obrigkeit.” Z. K. G., vol. 29, pp. 267-322, 
1908. 

Hinscuius, Pauu, Katholisches Kirchenrecht, vols. I- 
VI, 1, Berlin, 1869-1897. 

The standard work from the Protestant viewpoint. 
Left unfinished at the author’s death. 

Hou, K., Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregi- 
ment. Supplement to Zeitschr. f. Theol. u. Kirche. 
Tubingen, 1911. 

JANSSEN, JOHANNES, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes 
seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters. 6th ed. Vols. I- 
III. Freiburg i.B., 1880-81. 

A brilliant work by a Catholic scholar, but marred 
by special pleading. 

Jones, Rurus M., Studies in Mystical Religion. Lon- 
don, 1909. 

——Spiritual Reformers in the 16th and 17th Centuries. 
London, 1914. 

These two books, from the pen of a man who is 
spiritually much akin to the men of whom he 
writes, furnish a good background in English for 
the present study. 

Jorc, Jos. Epmunp, Deutschland in der Revolutions- 
Periode von 1522 bis 1526. Freiburg i.B., 1851. 

Inaccurate, but of some value because dealing espe- 
cially with the situation in central Germany. 








BIBLIOGRAPHY 223 


KELLER, Lupwic, Ein A postel der Wiedertdufer. Leip- 
zig, 1882. 

Denck is Keller’s hero. Letters and documentary 

material of importance are appended. Especially 

important is Denck’s letter to Cicolampadius, Oct., 

1527. 

Die Anfinge der Reformation und die Ketzerschu- 
len. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Waldenser 
beim Beginn der Reformation. Berlin, 1897. 

-——Geschichte der Wiedertaéufer und thres Reichs zu 
Minster. Munster, 1880. 

Grundfragen der Reformationsgeschichte: eine 

Auseinandersetzung mit litterarischen Gegnern. Ber- 

lin, 1897. 

Johann von Staupitz und die Anfdnge der Reforma- 

tion. Leipzig, 1888. 

Has some documents relating to Denck in appen- 

dices. 

Die Reformation und die dlteren Reformparteien in 
thren Zusammenhange. Leipzig, 1885. 

Since writing his first book on: the ‘“ Anabaptists ” 
in 1880 Keller has been their most consistent and 
able champion. An archivist himself, he has based 
his work largely upon careful archival studies. His 
championing of the “ Anabaptists,” and his attempt 
to connect them with earlier reforming sects, has 
led him into sharp conflict with Lutheran historians, 
and has tended to give his work something of the 
character of special pleading. To him, however, we 
owe the beginning of the fair-minded study of the 
sects of the Reformation. 

Kircuuorr, “ Johann Herrgott, Buchfuhrer zu Nurn- 
berg und sein tragisches Ende, 1527.” From 














224 BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Arch, f. Gesch. des deutschen Buchhandels. Leipzig, 
1875. 

KOHLER, W., “ Barge, Karlstadt,’ in Gdttingische 
gelehrte Anzeigen, No. 9, 1912. 

Bibliographia Brentiana. Berlin, 1904. 

‘“ Brentiana und andere Reformatoria.” A. R. G., 

IQII-I2. : 

Reformation und Ketzerprozess. Tubingen and 
Leipzig, 1901. 

An able essay by a thorough scholar. It broke new 
ground, but its conclusions have been generally sub- 
stantiated by later researches. 

KotpE, Geruarp, “ Zur brandenburgisch-niirnbergischen 
Kirchenvisitation, 1528.” B. B. K. G., vol. 19, pp. 
275 et seq., 1912. 

An important letter from the Nuremberg Council to 
the rulers of Bavaria and the Palatinate regarding 
the church visitation of 1528. 

Kovpe, Tu., ‘‘ Carlstadt und Danemark.” In Z. K. G., 
vol. 8. pp. 283-289, 1886. 

Friedrich der Weise und die Anfinge der Reforma- 
tion. Erlangen, 1881. 

Prints an important letter from Spalatin to Elector 
John ,Octe iris 25 ies) 

——“ Hans Denck und die gottlosen Maler von Niirn- 

bereca a niBiB yA Soon 
A little monograph based upon researches in the 
Nuremberg archives, and very well done. Espe- 
cially valuable for its footnotes, where are printed 
excerpts from the sources, and for its appendices. 

“ Uber das Kirchenwesen in Niirnberg im Jahre 

1525.” B. B.'K..G., vol, 19, pp. §7—74. 

















BIBLIOGRAPHY 225 


KostLin, Jutrus, Martin Luther, sein Leben und seine 
Schriften. 2 vols. Revised by Kawerau. Berlin, 1903. 

Lea, H. C., A History of the Inquisition in the Middle 
Ages. 3 vols. New York, 1888. 

Lecxy, W. E. H., History of the Rise and Influence of 
the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe. 2 vols.; revised 
ed. New York, 1870. 

Linpsay, Tuomas M., A History of the Reformation. 
2 vols. New York, one: 

LipEMANN, HERMANN, Reformation und Tiufertum in 
ihrem Verhdlinis zum christlichen Princip. Bern, 
1896. 

Lupewic, G., Die Politik Niirnbergs im Zeitalter der 
Reformation. Gottingen, 1893. 

Mever, Cur., “ Die Anfange des Wiedertaufertums in 
Augsburg.” In Zeitschr. d. hist. Vereins f. Schwaben 
u. Neuburg, I, 211-253. 1878. 

The best study of Hans Hut. Appends documents 
of much importance for the history of the sects in 
central Germany. 

Mouier, W., Andreas Osiander: Leben und ausge- 
wahlte Schriften. Elberfeld, 1870. 

Chiefly valuable for excerpts from the sources. 

Mier, Ernst, Geschichte der bernischen Tdaufer. 
Frauenfeld, 1895. 

Miurer, Karu, Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigheit nach 
Luther. ‘Tubingen, 1910. 

Best survey of an important question. 

Kirchengeschichte.. Freiburg i.B., 1892-. Still in 
process of publication. 

Murray, R. H., Erasmus and Luther: Their Attitude 
to Toleration. London, 1920. 





226 BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Argues that Luther was never “a persecutor on 
purely religious grounds.” 

NEWMAN, ALBERT H., A History of Anti-Pedobaptism, 
from the Rise of Pedobaptism to 1609. Philadelphia, 
1897. 

Of little critical value. 

Ney, Jutius, Geschichte des Reichstags zu Speier im 
Jahre 1529, mit einem Anhange ungedruckter Akten 
und Briefe. Hamburg, 1880. 

NICOLADONI, ALEXANDER, Johannes Biinderlin von Linz 
und die oberosterreichischen Tdufergemeinden in den 
Jahren 1525-1531. Berlin, 1893. 

Pages 160-301 consist of important source mate- 
rials, culled from various archives, regarding the 
‘“ Anabaptists.” 

OWEN, JoHN, Evenings with the Skeptics, or Free Dis- 
cussion on Freethinkers. New York and London. 
1881. 

The Skeptics of the Italian Renaissance. WLondon 
and New York, 1893. 

Pauutus, Nixouaus, Protestantismus und Toleranz im 
16. Jahrhundert. Freiburg i. B., 1911. 

A strong but salutary arraignment, from the pen 
of a Catholic scholar, of the current Protestant 
viewpoint. 

RANKE, LEoPoLD von, History of the Reformation in 
Germany. 2nd ed., tr. by Sarah Austin. Vols. 1-3. 
London, 1845. 

REICKE, Emin, Geschichte der Reichsstadt Niirnberg. 
Nurnberg, 1896. 

REMBERT, Karu, Die “ Wiedertdufer” im Herzogtum 
Julich. Berlin, 1899. 





BIBLIOGRAPHY 227 


Emphasizes the influence of the humanists, and es- 
pecially of Erasmus, upon the sects of the 16th 
century. 

Rouwricu, T. W., Geschichte der Reformation im Elsass 
und besonders in Strassburg. 2 vols. Vol. I. Strass- 
burg, 1830. 

Largely superseded. 

Rotu, FRriepricH, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte. 
4 vols. Vol. I. Miinchen, root. 

Die FEinfuhrung der Reformation in Niirnberg. 
Wurzburg, 1895. 

Very important for the present study. 

RuFFINI, FRANcEscO, Religious Liberty. Tr. by J. 
Parker Heyes, New York, 1912. 

Industrious, but uninspired. Written from a legal- 
istic point of view. 

ScuirF, Otto, “ Thomas Miinzer und die Bauernbewe- 
gung am Oberrhein.” In Hist. Zeitschr., Vol. 110, 
1913. 

SCHWABE, Lupwic, “ Uber Hans Denck.” In Z. K. G., 
12 (1891), pp. 452-493. 

Contains fragments of Denck’s writings. 

SCHORNBAUM, K., “Zum Aufenthalte Joh. Polianders 
und Joh. Schwanhaussens in Niirnberg.” In B. B. 
Fe yy. Dy a 1b: 

Prints an important letter from the Nuremberg 

Council to Poliander. 

“Zur brandenburgisch-niirnbergischen Kirchenvisi- 

tations 2528." oan B.- Books (Gyo 11, ppk 2m 

222. 

Zur Politik des Markgrafen Georg von Branden- 

burg vom Beginne seiner selbstandigen Regierung bis 











228 BIBLIOGRAPHY 


zum Nurnberger Anstand, 1528-1532. Miinchen, 

1906. 

Die Stellung des Markgrafen Kasimir von Branden- 
burg zur reformatorischen Bewegung in den Jahren 
1524-27 auf Grund .archivalischer Forschungen. 
Nurnberg, 1900. 

The author of the above works bases his studies 
upon extensive research in the archives of Nurem- 
berg and Bamberg. His writings are voluminous, 
but not very significant for this study. 

SEIDEMANN, J. R., Thomas Miinzer. Dresden and Leip- 
zig, 1842. 

Valuable documents in the appendices. 

SMITH, P., The Age of the Reformation. New York, 
1920. 

SODEN, F. von, Beitrége zur Geschichte der Reforma- 
tion und der Sitten jener Zeit mit besonderm Hinblick 
auf Christoph Scheurl II. Niirnberg, 1855. 

From good sources and in general reliable. 

TROELTSCH, Ernst, “ Die Bedeutung des Protestantis- 
mus fur die Entstehung der modernen Welt.” In 
Hist. Zeitschr., Vol. 97, 1906. 

Die Soziallehren der, christlichen Kirchen und Grup- 
pen. Tibingen, 1912. 

UHLHORN, GERHARD, Uybanus Rhegius: Leben und 
ausgewahlte Schriften. Elberfeld, 1861. 

The standard biography. 

VACANDARD, E., The Inquisition: a Critical and Histori- 
cal Study of the Coercive Power of the Church. Tr. 
from 2nd ed. by B. L. Conway. New York, 1908. 

VepDER, Henry C., Balthasar Hiibmaier, the Leader of 
The Anabaptists. New York, 1905. 








BIBLIOGRAPHY 229 


Contains a translation of Hubmaier’s “ Von Ket- 
zern und ihren Verbrennern,” pp. 84-88. 

VOLKER, K., Toleranz und Intoleranz im Zeitalter der 

Reformation. Leipzig, 1912. 
A very careful study. 

WALTHER, WILHELM, Fiir Luther wider Rom: Hand- 
buch der Apologetik Luthers und der Reformation 
den rémischen Anklagen gegenitiber. Halle a. d. S., 
1906. 

Claims for Luther large-hearted tolerance. 

WappLer, Pau, Inquisition und Ketzerprozess in 
Zwickau zur Reformationszeit. Dargestellt im Zusam- 
menhang mit der Entwickelung der Ansichten Luthers 
und Melanchthons tiber Glaubens- und Gewissens- 
freiheit. Leipzig, 1908. 

Important documents (pp. 164-213). A careful 

discussion, based upon fresh material from the 

archives, of the attitude of the two leaders of the 

Wittenberg movement. 

Die Stellung Kursachens und des Landgrafen 
Philipp von Hessen zur Tduferbewegung. In Re- 
formationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte, ed. by 
Greving. Miinster, 1g1o. 

Appendices of documents, pp. 129-246, especially 
illustrative of the attitude of Philip of Hesse 
towards the sectaries. Shows the conflict of opin- 
ion between Philip of Hesse and John Frederick 
of Saxony regarding their treatment. 

——Die Tauferbewegung in Thuringen von 1526-1584. 
Jenaprror3: 

The most careful of all the special studies of the 
“ Anabaptists.”” Not the least valuable part of his 





230 BIBLIOGRAPHY 


work are the pages (228-524) in which are found 
documents — reports of court proceedings, man- 
dates against the ‘ Anabaptists” and reports con- 
cerning them. 

——Thomas Miinzer in Zwickau und die “ Zwickauer 
Propheten.’ Zwickau, 1908. 

WERNLE, Paut, Die Renaissance des Christentums im 
16 Jahrhundert. ‘Tubingen and Leipzig, 1904. 

Renaissance und Reformation. ‘Tubingen, 1912. 

WESTERMAYER, H., Die brandenburgisch-niurnbergische 
Kirchenvisitation und Kirchenordnung, 1528-1533. 
Erlangen, 1894. 

Wii, G. A., Beytrage zur Geschichte des Antibaptismus 
in Deutschland. Niirnberg, 1773. 

An important little book for the study of the sec- 
tarian movement in Nuremberg. Will was a good 
Lutheran and strongly disliked the sectaries. He 
had access to good sources, however. Appendices 
contain important documents, most valuable being 
such parts of Millner’s Annals as mention the 
‘“‘ Anabaptists.” Miillner lived in the 16th century 
and was employed by the Council at Nuremberg. 
The Annals are unprinted. These pages therefore 
form a valuable source. This volume is identical 
with the author’s Beytrage zur Frankischen Kirchen- 

historie, Nurnberg, 1770. 

Nurnbergisches Gelehrten-Lexicon. Nurnberg und 
Altdorf, 1755. 

WINTER, Vitus ANTON, Geschichte der baierischen 
Wiedertaufer im sechszehnten Jahrhundert. Miinchen, 
1809. 

Has a number of documents appended; otherwise 
of little worth. 








INDEX 


Albert, Archbishop of Mainz, 
VEN 

Albert of Brandenburg, 132. 

Allstedt, 40, 108. 

Altenburg, 26, 106, 130, 132, 
he 

Altenerlangen, 155, 159. 

“ Anabaptists”’ (see also Sec- 
taries): attitude of historians 
towards, 11-12; champion 
individual conscience, 18-20; 
difficulty of classification, 
12-15, 19; general tenets of, 
15-20; loose use of name, 
12-14; on the state and 
society, I5, 17-18, 145, 158- 
159, 172; rapid spread of, 
97, 142-144, 150; should be 
tolerated, 195; significance of 
for later times, 20; ‘‘ synod ” 
Of, 1444145," 1503" | their 
theories exaggerated, 18-10; 
theory of sacraments, 17, 75; 
laws against: in Catholic 
lands, 147, 173; in Evan- 
gelical lands, 146-147, 1438- 


I5I, 153, I71, 173, 192; 
decree of Swabian League 
against, 173-174, 178; Im- 


perial mandates against, 172- 
173, 178, 195-196, 200. 
Augsburg, 32, 36-37, 144, 
150, 155, 156, 168, 171, 173. 

Augustine, Saint, 99, 102. 


Baptism, 14, 17, 56-57, 75-76, 
79; 83, 84, go, 158, 17!I, 172. 


231 


Basel, 32, 54. 


Bible, The: authority of, 10, 
33, 42, 55-56, 98-99, 108— 
109; interpretation of, 15, 
74-75. 


Bibra, 35, 154, 157 (note 94). 

Blasphemy, 93-04, I15, 118— 
123, 124, 132, 142, 149, 172, 
198. 

Blaurock, 146. 

Bodenstein, Andreas, see Karl- 
stadt. 

Brenz, Johann, 178-180, 184- 
185, 190-194, 195; his 
Bedenken, 178-180, 182 note, 
185-190, 191, 203-204. 

Brisger, 124. 

Brismann, 122. 


Cajetan, Cardinal, 25. 

Capito, Wolfgang, 199. 

Casimir, duke of Brandenburg- 
Ansbach, 51. 

Castellio, Sebastian, 192. 

Censorship of the press, 47, 50- 


Ty 
Church lands, confiscation of, 
132, 133-134, 138-139. 
Civil law, The, condemned 


rebaptizers, 14, 188-190. 
Conscience, claims of, 4-5, 8- 
TOV 10,20; azole 
Crotus Rubeanus, 11. 


Denck, Hans: and Hatzer, 37- 
39; and Hut, 36-37; and 
northern radicals, 55; and 


232 INDEX 
personal religion, 57-58; 64-65, 103-105, 109-114, 
banishment of from Nurem- 170-172, 185-190. 
berg, 81-82; “bishop” of Eucharist, The, 17, 33, 62, 63, 


“ Anabaptists,”’ 97; borrows 
from earlier mystics, 53-54; 
Career.\)) Of) mnain=33. his 
.. Bekenntnis, 70-76;  inde- 
pendence of, 33-34, 57-58; 
leader of radicals in Nurem- 
berg, 53-55, 69; not guilty 
of sedition, 82 (note 34), 88, 
96; trial of, 69-81. 
Dietrich, Veit, 195, 1098. 
Dissent, 
punishment for: in Catholic 
lands, 147, 174; in Evan- 
gelical lands, 146-147, 
149; banishment, 81-82, 
86-87, 141, 143, 146, 150, 
I5I, 176, 183-184, 193; 
death, 146, 148, 150, 159, 
174-175. 
suppression of: in Evangel- 
ical states, union of Church 
and State for,,64, 91; 
grounds for, 88-94, I00, 
142, 190 (note 39), 195; 
in Middle Ages, 3, 60. 
Dolmann, Jacob, 155, 164. 
Diirer, Albrecht, 22, 48, 68. 


Ebner, Hieronymus, 26. 

Bek; jJohn, es; 121: 

Eltersdorf, 36, 156. 

Emperor (Charles V), 9, 20, 
47, 135. 

Emser, 121. 

Erasmus, 6. 

Error, Religious: not to be 
eradicated by force, 199; to 
be fought by carnal weapons, 
65, 82-83, 88-94; to be 
fought by spiritual weapons, 


66, 67, 68, 75-76; 80, 83, 
84, 90, 152, 154, 158. 


Ferdinand, Archduke of Aus- 
tria, 29, 46, 135, 147, 173. 
Franck, Sebastian, 191, 200- 

201. 
Friends of God, 23. 


Greiffenberger, Hans, 61-67, 77, 
88, 92, 153, 168. 

George, duke of Brandenburg- 
Ansbach, 168-170, 179, 184. 


Haferitz, Simon, 55-56. 

Hain, 35. 

Hatzer, Ludwig, 37-309. 

Heresy, 60, 93, 102, 104, 124, 
185-187. 

Herrgott, Johann, 47. 


Hesse, 175. 
Hotzel, Hieronymus, 48-49, 
oh) 


Hubmaier, 145. 

Humanism, 23-25, 30, 57. 

Hus, John, 23. 

Hut, Hans, 35-37, 144, 150, 
154-156, 165, 170. 


Idolatry, 115. 

Imitation of Christ, 53. 

Imperial Diets: Nuremberg, 
30, 473, Spires, (1526)410, 
135-137; Spires (1529), Ig, 
195-197; Worms, 9. 

“Inner Word,” 16, 45, 57, 74, 
79. 

Intolerance: basis of 1-2; en- 
joined for Christian rulers, 
99-100. 


INDEX 


Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein 
of, 34, 48-51, 53) 62, 67, 80, 
89, 90, 108, 152. 

Keller, Ludwig, 38. 

Ko6nigsberg (in Saxony), 148, 
155, 159. 

Kraft, Adam, 22. 

Kress, Christoph, 27. 


Link, Wenceslaus, 25-26, 178, 
180, 195. 

Luther, Martin: and “ Ana- 
baptists,” 16, 144, 160; and 
Denck, 57-58, 74-75, 98; and 
the individual, 10, 30-31, 
105-109; and mysticism, 54; 
and the princes, 8, 10; and 
Scripture, 9-10, 16, 106- 
109; and tolerance, 98-100, 
105; attitude toward heresy, 


Opes OF, 19G3, 102-865," 122; 
break with Church, 6-9; 
consistency of, 125-126; 


definition of blasphemy, 115, 
fio-123," 108; failure . to 
satisfy radicals, 11, 30-31, 
40, 143, 145-146; letter to 
Link (1528), 178-185; on 
conscience, 9, I20, 123; on 
the civil power, 96, 109-114, 
II5-1I16, 117, 123-125, 128- 
129, 133-134, 138-139, I41- 
142; on the death penalty, 
197-198; opposed by Karl- 
stadt, 48-49; opposed to 
Zwinglians, 197; relation 
with Nurembergers, 23-27, 
94, 123-126, 178-183, 192; 
reverence for authority, 98- 
ror; theory of Church unity, 
116; versus Miunzer, 34, 
40-43; writings of, 202- 
203. 


233 


Manz, Felix, 146. 

Marx von Weiblingen, 66. 

Melanchthon, Philipp, 91, 108, 
EIO11 8255 0l 24571008 

Miltitz, 25. 

More, Thomas, 5-6. 

Mosaic Law, The: invoked in 
defense of persecution, 44- 


AS, 46, I17-118, 128, 167, 
198; not applicable to sup- 
pression of ‘ Anabaptists,” 


187. 

Miilhausen, 40-41. 

Miinster, 20. 

Miinzer, Thomas, 34, 35, 37; 
40-44, 47, 51, 53, 54, 59, 89, 
TOOMP 21257154; 

Mut, Conrad, 11. 

Mysticism, and religious ‘re- 
volt, 41, 53-54. 


Nicholas of Cusa, 5-6. 

Nickolsburg, 39, I15. 

Nuremberg: counsels modera- 
tion in Swabian League, 
174-176; moderates in, 195; 
sectaries in, 22-23, 151-165, 
168-182, 192-194; seeks ad- 
vice for suppression of dis- 
sent, 178-179; theories of 
theologians and jurists in, 
regarding suppression of dis- 
sent, 77-81, 84-87, 89, g2—- 
93, 124, 194. 
Council of: adopts Luther- 
anism, 27-28, 95-96; and 
Greiffenberger, 63-66; as- 
sumes authority in religious 
questions, 23, 59-61, 177; 
attempts to steer a middle 
course, 46-47; banishes 
painters, 87; expels foreign 
agitators, 50, 60; issues in- 


234 


structions for the combating 
of error, 169-172; suppresses 
heresy, 61; tries Denck, 81- 
82. 

Niitzel, Kaspar, 25, 26. 


Odenbach, John, 199. 

(Ecolampadius, John, 32, 54- 
55. . 

Osiander, Andreas, 26-27, 28, 
33; 44-46, 63-65, 67, 77) 88, 
92, 124, 154. 


Painters, The (Bartel and 
Sebald Behaim, Georg Pentz, 
Hans Platner), 67, 68, 60, 
83-01, 93-94, 152-153. 

Palatinate, The, 175. 

Parish, The, independence of, 
129-132. 

Peasants’ Revolt, The, 209, 37, 
42-43, 59, 91, 116, 159, 172, 
174. 

Peringer, Diepold, 20. 

Pfeiffer, Heinrich, 40-41, 44- 
46, 124. 

Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, 
132, 136, 199-200. 

Pirkheimer, Wilibald, 11, 24- 
25, 54. 

Prince, The: responsible for 
spiritual welfare of subjects, 
127-128, 131-132, 135-139; 
to correct abuses in Church, 
8, 123-124. 

Protest, The, of Evangelical 
states at Spires, 196-197. 


Reinhart, Martin, 49-50, 53, 
89. 

Religious liberty, Protestants 
and, 7, 196. 

Renaissance, The, 5. 


INDEX 


Rhegius, Urbanus, 168. 
Romer, Hans, 44. 
Rothenburg (on the Tauber), 


he: 


Salzmann, Thomas, 149-150. 
Sattler, Michael, 145. 
Saxony, 40. 
Electors of: 
Wise, 209, 


Frederick the 

T3417; 20: 
131-132; John, tty 432; 
134, 136, 137, 139-140, 
148, 173, 176, 197. 

Dukes of: John Frederick, 
61, 112; George (Alber- 
tine), 147, 173. 

Schaubis, 124. ‘ 

Scheurl, Christoph, 25, 80, go. 

Schiemer, Leonard, 39. 

Schlaffer, Hans, 37-39. 

Schleupner, Dominicus, 27, 47. 

Schwartzenberg, Hans von, 
175, 

Schwertfeger, see Pfeiffer. 

Sectaries: attempted classifica- 
tion of, 68 note; connection 
with pre-Reformation groups, 
68 note; courage of, 199; 
grounds for punishment of, 
45-46, 65 (note 8), 167—- 
168, 1095; oppose external 
authority in religion, 30-31; 
seditious nature of teachings, 
53, 122, 157 (note 94), 159- 
160, 190 (note 39). 

Spalatin, George, 29, 109, 120, 
134, 137. 

Spengler, Lazarus, 23-26, 122, 
152, 176, 183, 195; 198, 
199. | 

Staupitz, John, 26, 102. 

Stoss, Veit, 22. 

Strassburg, 144, 149, 168. 


INDEX 


Sturm, Hans, 196-197. 

Swabian League, The, measures 
of to suppress dissent, 173- 
176, 


Tauler, 53. 
Theologia Germanica, 53-54. 
Thuringia, 148. 


Tolerance: basis of, 1-2; in 
later Middle Ages, 5-6; 
Brenz and, t1go-191 (also 


note 41); Luther and, 99- 
I0o, 
Torgau, League of, 136-137. 
Torture, 83 (note 36), 150, 
160 (and note 105). 


Vischer, Peter, 22. 
Visitation: of Nuremberg and 
Brandenburg-Ansbach, 176- 


235 


177; Saxon, 112, 138, 140- 
I4I 176. 

Vogel, Wolfgang, 36, 155-159, 
162, 164. 

Vogler, George, 175. 

Volkamer, Klemens, 27, 
175. 


174, 


Waldensians, 23. 

William, duke of Bavaria, 147. 

Wisperger, Erasmus, 67. 

Worms, Edict of, 10, 135, 147, 
196. 


Ziirich, 39, 143, 146, 153, 168. 

“ Zwickau prophets,’ The, 40, 
108, IOQ—IIO, I21. 

Zwilling, Gabriel, 130, 132. 

Zwingli, Huldreich, 16, 39, 143, 
148, 152, 168, 








nceton Theolo 


iii 
































iil 




















DATE DUE 


EE EEE ee eee 









































‘ } Vi 
| ubeaal 
iit i 1 
vi tilt 
1] | i 
Hitt 





PIS Se Ta Se 
——S~ = 











